Oh and such creation/deletion of system users/groups should then
definitely done by some centrally managed code.
This would also allow to easily update things like home-dir, shell or
the GECOS field.
Right now most installations quickly run out of sync, e.g. many legacy
installations will have sy
Hey.
Wouldn't something like the following be a solution:
Apart from some "static" system users/groups which every system has,
let system users be in a certain reserved range, which is not the
normal 1-1000 range but neither a range where normal users can be
created.
When packages try to add the
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 11:12 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> It's also documented in a new manual page called "deb-src-control(5)" that
> is currently only in dpkg's git repository:
> http://git.debian.org/?p=dpkg/dpkg.git;a=blob;f=man/deb-src-control.5
Great...
Nevertheless,.. speaks anything agai
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi.
The Homepage control filed is according to chapter 5.2 allowed in both,
the source package and the binary packages paragraphs.
IMHO, this makes (semantically even sense - perhaps that should be pointed out,
too) as e.g. a -doc, or a
Hey Russ and others :)
I've thought about that issue a little bit again,... and have to further
points which might be worth discussion:
1) Right now, init-scripts, as well as cron-scripts are configuration
files, right?
I guess that made a lot of sense, when initscripts where a) much easier,
b
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:51:40 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Please see the bug log for this bug. It was the first thing that
everyone
> objected to.
I read that... and seen no real technical arguments,... just "it would
break things"... and the "argument" that many packages would need to
support th
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 15:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think LSB exit codes are by far the most controversial part of the LSB
> proposal, are of dubious utility,
What are the arguments against them?
> and would mean declaring most of Debian
> init scripts currently buggy.
That makes ever intr
Hey Russ...
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 15:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's normal in Debian for init scripts to be left behind after packages
> are removed, since Debian's package management system retains
> configuration files by default (which includes init scripts). This is
> true across a wide
btw: Perhaps someone can explain me, when the Policy requests:
>These scripts should not fail obscurely when the configuration files
>remain but the package has been removed, as configuration files remain
>on the system after the package has been removed.
I mean are there any special technical rea
Hi folks.
I recently had a case which made me looking into this and Carsten Hey
pointed me to that specific bug report here.
Has there been any progress on this?
I mean we already use LSB init script headers for dependency based
booting...
Many scripts already have the status action (and then
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
Hi.
Attached patch would change the package description to use the correct
name of the FHS, which is not only a Linux thingy.
Especially now that we also have kfreebsd.
Cheers,
Chris.
--- control 2010-07-26 06:44:57.0 +
11 matches
Mail list logo
