On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 05:02:27PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> (bcc: cron maintainers, request-tracker3.8 maintainers, debianutils
> maintainers, jtmd)
> Hi,
>
> Karl E. Jorgensen noticed that the current advice for naming files in
> cron.d breaks for packages with a dot in their name and pro
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 06:45:43PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I would assume anything that sets the system time. This package was
> > probably intended for packages to depend on when they need time
> > synchronization but don't care how it happens (for instance, AFS and
> > Kerberos servers can
Package: debian-policy
Priority: wishlist
Hi all,
It was suggested to me (#349170) that we should use a virtual package
'cron-service' to make it easier to people to switch between different cron
implementations. Currently in Debian there are three of them available:
vixie-cron, which is our cu
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Priority: wishlist
The current policy has the following virtual package:
time-daemon anything that serves as a time daemon
However, I don't see any package that currently provides, or depends on such
a virtual package. Is this virtual package
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.1
Priority: wishlist
There is currently no policy on how should per-package users be created and
removed. Eeven though the 'UID and GID classes' sections determines that
packages _should_ use adduser --system in some occasions it doesn't
describe why a pack
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.1
Priority: wishlist
Tags: patch
[ Note: I understand that this status suggestion is covered (without a
valid example in #208010) but I believe that LSB compliance also forces
some other things (like exit codes) which is still under discussion.
That's why I'm
On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 12:18:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:48:55 +0100,
> >> Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > However, even if it's common sense, it might be necessary to
> > introduc
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 04:03:39PM +0100, 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
> creatio
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 04:32:10PM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
>
> I have a question for further discussion, which I'm unsure about. May
> or may not be a policy issue.
>
> Is it a good practice for SGML or XML documentation to ship with
> source?
>
I think you have retracted the question (i.e.
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.7.1
Severity: wishlist
Currently the Debian policy mandates regarding scripts a few conventions
including which arguments to accept and how to ouput the results:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#s10.4
However, even if it's common sense,
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:10:32AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it
> > is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is
>
> Even if I real
(CC me since I'm not in the list)
One simple question: how are tasks managed? what policy is there for
creation/addition of packages to it?
There are three contradictory views:
- Aj[1] said a while back that this is managed by override files in
the archive (this was probably only a temporary fi
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:37:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> wrote:
> > You are wrong here. Sample:
> >
> > - I want to provide a package with a lot of useful bash functions/aliases
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 02:20:19PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> The profile.d thing has been suggested several times (see the archived
> bugs for the base-files package) and I have always rejected it because
> it is against the spirit of policy when it says:
>
(..)
>
> If we followed this, no
(please keep me in CC: since I'm not in the list)
I have submitted this bug and the maintainer argues against
packaging it in a Debian non-native version. Could you please guys point
me to where the policy states this explictly?
I was pretty sure policy had a paragraph regarding t
15 matches
Mail list logo
