On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 29, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > To prepare for the eventual removal of makedev, I propose that packages
> > Er, why is makedev being removed? Please clue me in.
> "Eventual" is the
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> To prepare for the eventual removal of makedev, I propose that packages
> currently depending on it will add an alternative dependency to udev.
> Also, policy should be amended accordingly.
Er, why is makedev being removed? Please clue me in.
--
To U
package: debian-policy
version: 3.6.2.1
Section 12.3 says extra documentation should be compressed if it is small.
However, small is not defined. It would be useful if it was; otherwise, there
is no real incentive to compress documentation, as one person's "too large" is
another person's small.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, wrote:
> I have no intention of using policy to "beat anyone on the head".
> To repeat, the dpkg maintainer _asked_ for policy guidance. That is
> why he reassigned #254998 to debian-policy. You reassigned it back
> to dpkg on the grounds that there was no "bug" in policy.
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Bluefuture wrote:
> 3. submit with a wishlist (tag patch) bug to BTS.
These things shouldn't be filed as bugs, when there are so many. Make a
status page, discuss on -devel, and when the number of packages gets smaller,
then maybe you can file a mass-bug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
> Policy is not a stick to beat maintainers with. Conversly,
> changing policy to make a maintainer do a change that they are not
> willing to do on their own is a bad idea. You need the Tech Ctte,
> really.
There's no valid reason to do this, really. Invoking the TC card would be a
gro
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:47:03PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> > > I am offering a third patch that implement the Build-Options control
> > > field proposal.
> >
> > I reject this proposal, until su
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am offering a third patch that implement the Build-Options control
> field proposal.
I reject this proposal, until such time as the code has implemented it.
hint: send patches to the bts for dpkg-dev
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Uh, what if I want to put the following at the very top of my
> debian/control file?
>
> # $Id$
>
> I was given to understand that dpkg 1.10.15 or so would be just fine
> with it, whereas dpkg 1.9.21 or so would vomit all over it.
Placing comments in
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Josip Rodin wrote:
> (FWIW, I've seen doogie mention thinking of moving debian/ to dpkg/ at some
> point.)
I don't recall this. However, I could see mv debian deb.
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 01:02:56PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Joy proposed to put such information in debian/control instead.
> >
> > The idea of a new file was to ease parsing, but since it is read by
> > dpkg-buildpackage it should be OK.
>
> T
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 02:04:27AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > It's newer and shinier, so it must be better, right?
> >
> > If we're adding optional features, doing so in a way that doesn't
> > confuse people into believing that all packages need to use
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Some packages generate the control file at build time (e.g. from a
> control.in). We need to access the file before debian/rules is used,
> and debian/control might not exist yet.
debian/rules clean is called very early, and is where debian/control is
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I object to making the packaging system more complex without a real gain.
Well, without adding complexity, I do agree to having a field that specifies
the calling procedure for building the package. However, I don't like
Rules-Format, as it ties us to d
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> What needs to happen to get this into policy?
Nothing. It is not possible to support this. I attempted to in a dpkg upload
recently. It broke completely. I had to back it out.
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 11:05:54AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> >
> > > You also need to ensure that adduser and anything that it depends on to
> > > function are always available at all times just like libc6.
> >
>
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Objection. There is no way to create any user in preinst as the tool
> >> to do so is not in an essential package.
> >
> > This is what pre-depends are for.
>
&g
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > And appending this text to section 10.9:
> >
> >
> > If you want files in a package to be owned by a dynamically allocated
> > user or group, then you should create the user or group in preinst,
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Here's the current text of the latter part of section 10.9.1:
>
>
> Given the above, dpkg-statoverride is essentially a tool for system
> administrators and would not normally be needed in the maintainer
> scripts. There is one type of sit
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > binary: binary-arch binary-indep
> > binary-arch: apt libapt-pkg-dev apt-utils
> > binary-indep: apt-doc libapt-pkg-doc
> > apt: build
> > libapt-pkg-dev: build
> > apt-utils: build
> > apt-doc: build-doc
> > libapt-pkg-doc: build-doc
>
> But if you ha
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 12:23:50AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >
> > > So given how few packages we are talking about, would it be worth the
> > > buildds using all package
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> So given how few packages we are talking about, would it be worth the
> buildds using all packages specified in both Build-Depends and
> Build-Depends-Indep and phasing out Build-Depends-Indep?
I modified apt's build earlier this week to work in split m
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
> Er um, kilobytes of course.
>
> > -rw-rw-r--1 joey joey 843948 Feb 8 19:13 list
What about compression? bz2/gz?
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> Em Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:16:19 -0600 (CST), Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> escreveu:
>
> > > Thanks for creating this pseudo module, or for indicating who I should ask
> > > if I'm wrong.
>
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Martin Quinson wrote:
> [debian-i18n CCed for obvious reason, debian-policy CCed because I'm not
> sure anymore who decides which pseudo-package exists]
>
> Hello,
>
> As coordinator of the french translation team, we would like to ask for the
> creation of a new pseudo packa
Today, I almost ran out of space on my /usr(2 gig partition). So, when trying
to find things to remove, I turned my attention to /usr/share/doc(which
contained 380 megs).
In doing this, I found several packages that had large quantities of
documentation in a non-doc type package. This meant that
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [-project and -policy, I CCed you because I'm raising issues relevant to
> you; *please* honor the Mail-Followup-To: header!]
Er, why -ctte and the bug only? My response is germane to more than these
groups. In fact, this really doesn't have any pa
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Matthew" == Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Matthew> i don't know what mailing list manoj is so arrogantly
> Matthew> assuming i read, but i'm clearly not subscribed.
>
> You filed a bug against debian policy. Debian policy is
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> i don't know what mailing list manoj is so arrogantly assuming i read,
> but i'm clearly not subscribed. did he respond to the other point i made?
-policy.
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > >>"Matthew" == Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Matthew> can you not use unprintably-encoded mime shite? it's hard to
> > read
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Matthew" == Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Matthew> can you not use unprintably-encoded mime shite? it's hard to read.
>
> shite? Fix your own darned MUA. (Actually, the breakage maybe
> in debbugs, since I see my original m
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> [ I'm not subscribed to debian-policy so please CC me if you want me to
> see your mail ]
>
> Hello,
>
> Yann Dirson pointed to me that the Uploaders field that we put in the
> control file is not documented within the policy.
>
> I don't know if it
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
> No, I want to see no /usr/doc. If you want to make some symlink be my guest,
> but /usr/doc is a FHS violation.
So? We have other FHS violations. We don't follow it strictly.
> The transition plan, which you have had 3 years to comment on, specifies
> th
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Chris Waters wrote:
> Oh, no no no! We're not reopening this can of worms! We had weeks of
> loud arguments about how to do this, and finally had to resort to the
> tech ctte to get a ruling. Now we have a plan, and we're sticking
> with it!
That was years ago. And, now t
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
> Adam Heath wrote:
> > Otherwise, suddenly /usr/doc becomes empty, and those that access
> > documentation thru that location suddenly can't.
>
> Um, those people have had a major release of debian which documents that
> the do
On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
> So would anyone murder me if the code in debhelper to make postinst
> scripts manage /usr/doc links just went missing? This would of course
> cause the link to go away when packages were upgraded to versions built
> with the new debhelper. Since we'll be rec
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Adam Heath wrote:
> > /usr/info/dir was just recently moved, with dpkg 1.10. That file is now a
> > symlink to /usr/share/info/dir.
>
> We should not need /usr/info/dir as a symlink. install-info works ok
> without the sy
On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> (What about /usr/info <-> /usr/share/info ?)
/usr/info/dir was just recently moved, with dpkg 1.10. That file is now a
symlink to /usr/share/info/dir. Once all files are moved from
/usr/info(there's a few left), and all info browsers read from
/usr/sha
On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
> So would anyone murder me if the code in debhelper to make postinst
> scripts manage /usr/doc links just went missing? This would of course
> cause the link to go away when packages were upgraded to versions built
> with the new debhelper. Since we'll be rec
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There are minor non-posix issues. The biggest is the use of echo -n(don't
> > say
> > use printf, it's too slow for shoop's target audience).
>
> In the curren
On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Any chance of a rerun with posh (sources are in queue/new and readable)
> > or pdksh?
>
> I don't think you'll be able to gauge posh that way; shoop isn't
> POSIX-compliant.
There are minor non-posix issues. The biggest is the use of echo -n(don't say
Just because dpkg recognizes a field, doesn't mean everything implements it
yet. dselect/apt, need to handle it correctly.
This appears fixed in cvs, which will be part of 1.10. But until it is
verified as working correctly, and apt supports it, policy should not mention
it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 07:18:45PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Chris Waters wrote:
> >
> > or, more simply:
> >
> > build binary-arch binary-indep binary clean:
> > deb
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Chris Waters wrote:
or, more simply:
build binary-arch binary-indep binary clean:
debian/myrules $@
Or, even simpler:
%:
debian/myrules $@
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For the record, if any tools in the dpkg suite can't handle multi-line fields,
please file bugs.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Clint Adams wrote:
> > the problem is there is no better replacement for 'command -v'. And we do
> > not
> > really need an exception -- every shell we have supports this. So the only
> > way
>
> Well, that's not true. As Luca has pointed out, /usr/bin/which is
> Essentia
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 11:49:45PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 May 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > > > Why not just use /libexec, for hurd, and be done with it? Why force
> > > > the rest
&g
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Why not just use /libexec, for hurd, and be done with it? Why force the
> > rest
> > of Debian to require use of it?
>
> As I understand it, that's all they're asking for. But Debian Policy
> says "follow the FHS", and {/usr,}/libexec doesn't. A
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Josip Rodin wrote:
> This seems to be quite poorly worded... written in haste? :)
>
> How about simply:
>
> If your package includes run-time support programs that don't need to
> be invoked manually by the users, or named in a way that would cause
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Per Bothner wrote:
> Also, what happens if you install a Java package, and then install
> gcj later? Shuld that so the compilation to .so when you install
> gcj?
Each emacs extension packages places hooks into a site-wide dir. Then, all
the emacsen are processed over each f
On 12 May 2002, Jim Pick wrote:
> Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
> for emacs -> just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
> compilation (.java to .so) at install time. Is this automatic enough
> under gcj so that this could that work?
Let m
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> Ok, then it is just a question of naming. Say my foo library can be
> compiled to .class files and GCJ .so files. One option is to
> package both in libfoo-java, which would be architecture specific.
> But if you want to split them into an architectur
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> And the same for gcj? Is there an easy way to port a Ant based compilation
> to some Makefile like stuff for compiling with gcj? Is there a good tutorial
> on it somewhere?
I've got a makefile based build system, that supports jdk-like jvms(kaffe,
su
On 12 May 2002, Jim Pick wrote:
> Also, as the upstream kaffe maintainer, I'd really like it if for each
> package that was stuck in contrib because kaffe can't run it (eg.
> unimplemented APIs, etc), there was a "wishlist" bug filed against kaffe
> stating how it fails. I suppose that goes for t
On 12 May 2002, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> 2.5. Main, contrib or non-free
>
>
>
> If your binary package can run only with non-free virtual machines
> (the only free Java virtual machine seems to be kaffe - and the one
> included in libgcj), it cannot go to main. If your package itself is
>
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> No, the same functionality is _NOT_ served by tags. Like it or
> not, our bug listing are done by severity, and shoving policy
> violation into a tag degrades the importance of not violating
> policy.
No. The web frontend considers certain t
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> This is rather non-sensical: all packages /are/ left to the whimsy of
> the dpkg developers. If you don't believe me, I'm sure Wichert or Adam
> will be happy to introduce some random bugs in dpkg 1.10.x to demonstrate.
Just say the word, and we'd be hap
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Dpkg has an internal tar for extraction, and it now has a configration
> file, it should be trivial to have it optionally write out the file list
> data - someone make a patch already :P Heck, I'll even make a reference
> deb->file list converter if it
> debian-binary
> control.tar.gz
> data.tar.gz
> filelist.gz
> detatched-sig-of-filelist.gz
> detatched-sig-of-the-whole-deb
This is what I was thinking as well.
The current dpkg-deb is sub-optimal, however, for making this md5sum list. It
uses external tar to make data.tar.gz, which means each
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> This used to be documented in (I think) the packaging manual: if a cycle
> amongst Depends: exists, the cycle will be broken by choosing the package
> without a postinst (if there is one) or arbitrarily, iirc. There's still
> some determinism to be had,
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Peter Moulder wrote:
> Adam Heath voices what is I believe the natural reading of current
> policy, namely that Depends implies postinst ordering, and consequently
> that dependency cycles aren't allowed.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/de
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> CVSGET=cvs -d":pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/webwml" \
> co -p webwml/english/mirror/Mirrors.masterlist
>
> build:
> # Freshen Mirrors.masterlist file, but allow failure.
> if $(CVSGET) > Mirrors.masterlist.0 \
>&& [ -s "
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> >
> > Ok. Should this be a lintian check? Test for cvs -d :pserver:...
> > in the rules file?
> >
>
> I can add it if I must. However I would like to trust our developers to not
> be
> that silly (-:
No, you shouldn't check.
It is not a bug if
cc'd to -policy, to discuss this .d dir/conffile madness
On 19 Dec 2001, Brian May wrote:
> actually msyslog has hacked around the problem of
> /etc/logrotate.d/syslog-common by renaming it to
> /etc/logrotate.d/syslog-common.disabled (isn't modifying conffiles
> like this against debian policy?)
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, John R. Daily wrote:
> Possible reasons for mandating policy: insuring interoperability,
> consistency, functionality, and desire to be a fascist jerk.
1) insuring interoperability
If a package doesn't work with the interface another package provides, it's
still a bug. Poli
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, VALETTE Eric wrote:
> I have been discussing quite a lot on different debian mailing list on a
> way to automate debian installation. The final and almost unfiform
> answer was to use debconf in non-interactive mode.
>
> The technical reason is that due to use of tty the follow
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
> ...or there is non-free code in the upstream tarball, or the tarball
> unpacks to a poorly-named subdirectory, or doesn't unpack to a
> subdirectory at all, etc.
These last 2 'problems' have not been problems for years. Update your brain.
Sorry for the large cc, but it is about time that debian had a unified policy
on these package names.
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> Okay. Note that java policy states that "Libraries packages must be named
> lib-XXX-java."
I think the java policy is wrong. Why should java be any
On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> In contrast, if the md5sums are stored in the package on CD, verification
> is easy: You just need to boot from the (trusted) CD, and kick off the
> comparison with the CD content. It is easier to trust a list of checksums
> mirrored world wide and
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Can you elaborate on the advantage of letting everyone generate their own
> > checksums for the installed files? Seems to me a waste of cpu cycles.
>
> We process all the data in a pipe anyway so calculating the
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Paul Slootman wrote:
> On Wed 25 Jul 2001, Adam Heath wrote:
> >
> > What happens if the admin has set certain permissions on the device files,
> > and
> > you go and recreate them, thereby removing those permissions?
> >
> > So yo
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Paul Slootman wrote:
> I got a bug report, marked "serious", on isdnutils today.
>
> It concerns the fact that MAKEDEV is called from the postinst to create
> the required ISDN devices, without first asking the user for permission.
>
> Apparently this is policy, although no on
package: debian-policy
version: 3.5.5.0
--
That format is a series of entries like this:
package (version) distribution(s); urgency=urgency
* change details
more change details
* even more change details
-- maintainer name and email address date
pack
package: debian-policy
version: 3.5.5.0
--
C.4 Unpacking a Debian source package without dpkg-source
dpkg-source -x is the recommended way to unpack a Debian source
package. However, if it is not available it is possible to unpack a
Debian source archive as follows:
1. Untar the tarf
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > You are the release manager. File the bugs, declare them
> > release critical [...]
>
> Okay. Whatever. I really don't have the patience for -policy anymore.
I agree with Manoj on this. task packages exist potato and woody. That means
we have t
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> Chris Waters wrote:
> > > - A change in the policy to remove the obsolete /usr/doc symlinks.
> >
> > This is supposed to happen once enough packages make the transition.
>
> No, it is supposed to happen one release _after_ a release in which all
> the package
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Chris Waters wrote:
> This is supposed to happen once enough packages make the transition.
> Now, if we're really down to 253 packages that use /usr/doc (with no
> symlink), then maybe it's time. But, unfortunately, that number, 253,
> measures *claimed* compliance, not actual
On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> policy uses alphanumeric to define version numbers. Is this only a-zA-Z0-9,
> or does this include the "_"? As the "_" is used as a seperator in Debian
> package file names, this would be perverse, but I would like to stay on the
> safe side.
>
-us server as well.
This seems confusing. Why not use the language of dpkg, and say it with
depends, suggests, etc?
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK
W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
apt had issues initially(or something to this effect).
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTE
style architecture
specification string for the build machine as well as the host
machine. Here is a list of supported variables:
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Adam Heath wrote:
> > Is this created in debian/control by the maintainer, or should it be
> > inserted
> > at package build time by an automated tool? Indeed, couldn't all fields be
> > inserted at packa
+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
GIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C
all that java stands
for.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
----BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67
reopen 61116
thanks
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Adam Heath wrote:
>
> > package: base-files
> > severity: important
> >
> > During my upgrade tonite, /etc/motd was flagged as a changed conf file, so I
> > hit 'D&#x
! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
----BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
2
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PG
reassign 44079 libapache-mod-jserv
thanks
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Package: dhelp
> Version: 0.3.13
>
> Adam Heath wrote:
> > Setting up libapache-mod-jserv (1.0-2) ...
> > ln: /usr/doc//libapache-mod-jserv: cannot overwrite directory
> > dpkg:
!V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E 63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05
-END PGP INFO-
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> So encourage the other committee members to cast their votes in the
> current ballet before this committee, so we can get on with our lives.
Eh? Come again? You think any of us have lives? :)
Adam
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Look good, except for one thing. How would you handle the case where
debian/control is generated from debian/control.in? dpkg-buildpackage would
not be able to check for dependencies in this case, until control is
generated, but you can't call d
On 9 Jul 1999, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Brian> Yes, the headers under /usr/include should match the
> Brian> current kernel version installed(using package managment of
> Brian> course).
>
> Manoj> What do y
I am replying to my own email, as I think that is best in what I am trying to
say this time.
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Adam Heath wrote:
> Let's face it. Gnome sucks. I don't know if I can count how many gnome
> versions we have in slink/potato. And then we have libaries that depend
Let's face it. Gnome sucks. I don't know if I can count how many gnome
versions we have in slink/potato. And then we have libaries that depend on
gnome, and if a program depends on these secondary libraries, then you have to
try and diddle around just to get it to compile.
I propose that gnome
I am packaging up Communicator/Navigator 4.05(full debs) for debian. Because
of the way I provide /usr/X11R6/bin/netscape, I have to conflict
netscape{3,4}.
During an irc session, someone said that fortify wouldn't install with my pkg.
Fortify depends on netscape4. This is wrong, in my opinion.
I have made a wrapper to start-stop-daemon that had a new cmdline option, -B |
--background, that allows daemons to be started in the background
asynchronosly. This would allow the login prompt to appear sooner, and would
make Debian appear to be a faster loading system.
Below is the script to do
99 matches
Mail list logo
