Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
> That said, relocating it to outside of /etc is a Major Bad Idea, and I
> very strongly recommend against it. Local configuration to move it
> somewhere else is already provided, but you just have extreme amount of
> application documentation and even certifi
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 09:00:14PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> So the reason for imposing a length restriction on version numbers in
> particular is due to the UI display of aptitude? I'm a bit dubious that
> this is a good justification for a Policy rule. dpkg -l has truncated
> version numbers
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [110501 16:39]:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#621833: System users: removing them"):
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:31:47PM +0200, sean finney wrote:
> > > I second your original proposal though, that packages must not delete
> > > system users th
Le Sun, May 01, 2011 at 09:42:17AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit :
>
> No, but I'd like to have a MUST rule that says that you MUST specify the
> full repository and commit identification data in the 'new upstream'
> changelog entry when you package out of a VCS repository instead of
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#621833: System users: removing them"):
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:31:47PM +0200, sean finney wrote:
> > I second your original proposal though, that packages must not delete
> > system users that they have created. I don't think anyone had objections
> > to that,
On Sun, 01 May 2011, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Steve Langasek writes:
> > > I don't think that /etc/shadow qualifies as a "configuration file",
> > > either; I would call it "variable state information" (→ /var/lib), but
> > > it lives in /et
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > I don't think that /etc/shadow qualifies as a "configuration file",
> > either; I would call it "variable state information" (→ /var/lib), but
> > it lives in /etc because a) it has to be on the root filesystem, b)
> > that's wh
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Osamu Aoki writes:
> > This is another topic. I do not think everyone agreed yet to a
> > particular set of numbers. The more I looked into this issue, I think
> > followings are the possible numbers:
No, but I'd like to have a MUST rule that says that
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:31:47PM +0200, sean finney wrote:
> I second your original proposal though, that packages must not delete
> system users that they have created. I don't think anyone had objections
> to that, and the question is whether things should be taken further.
I do object to te
9 matches
Mail list logo
