On 11/30/2017 12:31 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
- For the sake of avoiding ambiguity, an interpreter for file formats or
network protocols that include software, such as scripts, may consider
the user browsing to a site or opening a file as "user interaction"
for the purposes of processing
On 11/30/2017 08:52 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
[...] But the overall result is that a user who wants to use Free
software can be steered by Debian into installing and using non-free
software, sometimes unwittingly,
I would like to establish a way to prevent this.
I think the ideal way would be if
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Somebody needs to explain to Jari the concept of a shared text segment.
>
Bash:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ grep 'Private_Dirty' /proc/$$/smaps | perl -e '$t = 0;
while (<>) { /(\d+) kB$/ or die "parse err: $_"; $t += $1 } print "tot: $t\n"'
tot: 2800
Dash:
$ grep 'P
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.9.0
Severity: minor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Policy seems to say that:
1 << 1-("The absence of a debian_revision compares earlier than
the presence of one")
However, dpkg thinks they are equal.
1-, accord
On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 20:42, Chris Waters wrote:
> The argument against this is that the majority of package currently
> DO require root (or fakeroot, dh_testroot can't tell the difference).
> Nor does policy *FORBID* this -- it may not MANDATE it, but it doesn't
> forbid it, and we don't change p
On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 06:55, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Since the binary target is invoked as root (be it fakeroot or su or
> whatever, it doesn't matter), and the clean rule needs to clean out the
> debian/tmp or equivalent directories, it needs root as well.
Not with fakeroot:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 2003-03-16 at 20:13, Chris Waters wrote:
> But dh_testroot is part of the clean target in the examples that come
> with debhelper, and therefore probably in *every* debhelper-based
> package in Debian (which is the vast majority of packages). Why
> single out the poor slang developer to p
On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 20:34, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 07:21:55PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> You're trying too hard to parse it. This is not some silly game to see
> what sort of frivolous bug reports we can file today.
I did leave the bug at severit
> Anyway, I don't see how having a dh_testroot should be policy
> *violation*. From my reading, clean *may* get invoked as root, but from
> that it does not follow that it *must not* be invoked as root if
> unnecessary.
I parse "The clean target may need to be invoked as root if binary has
been in
On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 05:28, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> Technical problems here. Among other things, you'd have symlinks
> /bin/sh -> /etc/alternatives/sh -> /bin/
> What happens if /etc is corrupted or not mounted or there are other
> problems?
Nothing worse than what happens if you put /etc on
On Friday, February 8, 2002, at 12:14 AM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The fact that policy says that init.d scripts _should_ be
marked as a conffile, and later specifying that loca changes _must_
be preserved.
Huh? Couldn't you preserve changes some other way? If we said
_must_ be mark
Wichert Akkerman writes:
Previously Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The quoted version of policy says that the package must call MAKEDEV. As
long as this section is being changed, we should probably note that on
devfs systems, MAKEDEV will turn itself into a no-op.
Why?
Because calling MAKEDEV
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The quoted version of policy says that the package must call MAKEDEV. As
long as this section is being changed, we should probably note that on
devfs systems, MAKEDEV will turn itself into a no-op.
- -- System
13 matches
Mail list logo
