On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 01:44:02PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > * Andrey Rahmatullin , 2014-11-22, 12:39:
> > >--- a/policy.sgml
> > >+++ b/policy.sgml
> > >@@ -8892,6 +8892,7 @@ fname () {
> > > would point to /srv/run rather than
Bill Allombert writes:
> + 4294967294:
> +
> +
> + (uid_t)(-2) == (gid_t)(-2) must
> + not be used, because it is mistaken for
> + 65534 nobody by some
> + programs.
> +
> +
I
Bill Allombert writes:
> You rightfull object that 'the expectation is that an experienced Unix
> person' is subjective in nature and leads to contradictory opinion.
> So maybe we should replace the phrase 'If the expectation is ...' by a
> reference to standard that define what UNIX is (POSIX,
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 07:08:31PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Thanks for your clarification. Is the attached patch OK ?
>
> diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.txt b/virtual-package-names-list.txt
> index f52ddba..f68133f 100644
> --- a/virtual-package-names-list.txt
> +++ b/virtual-packa
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:21:27AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/11/14 at 21:13 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Was there a lot of failure ?
>
> No
>
> > What severity did you use for the bug report ?
>
> serious
So in practice, this is already handled as a RC bug. Good.
> > Are you in
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 02:27:06PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:44:22PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > Here's a patch to document the 32-bit nature of UIDs, in line with Ben's
> > suggestion (which seems sound to me).
>
> I miss the special case of 32-bit wide -2, aka
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 09:06:15AM +, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: important
>
> Hi,
>
> the following sentence in 2.5 leave much room for maneuver, therefor i
> would like to see a clarification how it should be interpreted:
>
> | Important programs, includ
7 matches
Mail list logo
