more than a ten minute change
to fix it. And we're not short of C programmers round here...
*ducks and hides*
--
Jules Bean |Any sufficiently advanced
[EMAIL PROTECTED],jellybean.co.uk} | technology is indistinguishable
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | from a perl script
Chris Leishman wrote:
> 1) Is it policy that a package must contain a DEBIAN/md5sums file?
> (not all do). Should it be?
>
> 2) Is it possible to create an easily accessable copy of these md5sums
> on the debian servers (similar to package lists, or perhaps as a .md5sums
> to go
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Daniel Martin wrote:
>
> As for the proper solution, I'm not sure. One could move $MBOXROOT
> back to $HOME, on the grounds that one never knows where else the
> upstream authors may have assumed that the two are the same, and then
> silently prepend "mail/" to any mailbox na
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Ideas I have had so far are:
> >Usual
> >Common
> >Better
> >Good
> >Useful
> >Widespread
> >Commended
>
> Of these `Commended' in the best, IMHO. Perhaps `Core' even if that may
> sound like more important than `Sta
On 25 Feb 1999, James Troup wrote:
>
> > Giving the package maintainers more control over the overrides for
> > their own packages seems a good strategy. Can you tell us why this
> > approach was abandoned earlier?
>
> How about because a certain developer would be free to NMU like it was
> goin
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Jules Bean wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >
> > > Please note that policy says:
> > >
> > >Packages may not depend on packages with lower priorit
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 06:37:33PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Well, apparently the ftp.debian.org maintainers disagree.
> > >
> > > In slink, the info package is important, but depends on ncurses3.
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Ok. To make it fully clear, I hereby change my earlier proposal to
> this one:
>
> extra
>
> "This contains all packages that conflict with others with required,
> important, standard or optional priorities, or are only likely to be
> useful if you alr
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Jules Bean wrote:
>
> > > Santiago Vila wrote:
> > >
> > > > I propose that we clarify this by saying explicitly which are the
> > > > priorities higher than extra. The modified w
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
>
> I second this proposal.
>
> Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > I propose that we clarify this by saying explicitly which are the
> > priorities higher than extra. The modified wording would be:
> >
> >
> > "This
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 06:21:14PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > In fact, you don't mean that it needs to run setuid. It merely needs
> > to be run _as_ a particular uid. There are several ways of achieving
> > this other than setuid. Two that I can
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't have those +ws in place, though, unless they're necessary.
>
> Well the -w can be taken off, but as I said, it does need to be setuid.
*grin*
That 's' was a pluralisation, not a setuid. I meant 'there's no need for
the directory or execu
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> The solution that I have come up with is to create a special directory in
> its /usr/lib area:
>
> drwxrwx--- listar.daemon restricted-executables/
>
> Then, in there, have the binary:
>
> -rwsrwsr-x listar.listar listar
>
> How does that sound to ev
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
> If "One mail is enough -- the bug report!" then One response should be enough,
> also from the bug tracking system. If you need the bug fixed, raise the
> severity (it'll be fixed by the next release, pulled or get a response from
> the
> maintainer as
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, David Rocher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I have translated, I would some information to keep the spirit of
> the Debian Policly Manual.
>
> version 2.5.0.0, section 5.5, paragraph 7:
>
> The convention of writing forward to address in
> the mailbox itself is not supported. ...
>
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
>
> On 26-Jan-99 Jules Bean wrote:
> > It doesn't have to be. The GPL could say, for example, 'this license
> > applies to the software which is put under it, as well as this document
> > itself, when it is distribut
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
>
> On 26-Jan-99 Jules Bean wrote:
> > Hi,
> Hello.
>
> > *Please*, if you have strong views on this subject, at least skim the
> > above threads, and those which follow on related issues, before entering
> > the deb
Hi,
In response to an issue on -legal, I am reopening the debate on how free
those parts of debian which are not software (or not precisely software)
should be.
IMO, this debate should be conducted on -policy, and I ask all replies to
this message to trim the CC: line.
This issue was discussed i
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> I attempted to start a similar thing ~2 yrs ago (the 'Debian QA Group') but
> it mostly failed due to the little time I could spend on it back then and
> lack of interest of most of the other developpers. Maybe it's time to try
> to restart it?
> (
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Brian White wrote:
> > > If you file this as bug agains Apache you need to file it against all
> > > other
> > > httpd's that support cgi-bin as well. Thus I assume that you need to
> > > modify
> > > policy first.
> >
> > I figured I'd start with t
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Brian White wrote:
> > Package: apache
> > Version: 1.3.3-4
>
> > Most people setting up a web site expect /cgi-bin/ to be available for
> > scripts on their site. Unfortunately, Debian uses this for those scripts
> > packages that get installed. The
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Now Corel would want to follow the Debian Policy out of respect for Debian,
> naturally, but also because if they do they know that their non-free
> package will remain functional even if a new version of Debian is released.
>
> At this point they
> Gordon made the suggestion that we change *_OS to *_KERNEL, because OS is a
> vague term in this context, and kernel fits the bill better (we have
> GNU/Linux OS and GNU/Hurd OS, but linux and gnu kernel).
>
> Jules, if you are fine with this, I will make the small chnage without
> further forma
I second this proposal.
Jules Bean
/+---+-\
| Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd|
| Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I tried to implement this but failed somehow. Could somebody give a small
> example how to do it in perl?
>
> task: Set a environment variable and run a program which options are in an
> array in this environment.
Um..
well, if you're simply trying
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 1999 at 10:09:15AM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > The standard approach is to eval the output of a program. c.f.
> >
> > eval `ssh-add`
> >
> > as used by ssh.
>
> I will suggest something like
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Question: Can I modify the environment of the invoking shell from inside a
> perl script? This would make it easier to use the script.
Nope.
(This is more or less fundamental to the way environment variables work).
The standard approach is to eval t
On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Jules Bean wrote:
> > The ability to invoke debian/rules by hand is not really a
> > 'technical advantage', though convenient.
>
> It is an advantage: I do "debian/rules binary" by hand quite a lot
On 8 Jan 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Jules> We should simply make dpkg-buildpackage more flexible (so
> Jules> that, for example, in the event you don't want a whole build,
> Jules> you can specify a target - if we don't already have this
> Jules> functionality).
>
> *Chuckle*. Am I
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Jules Bean wrote:
> > Minor glitch - currently, policy doesn't mandate that debian/rules be a
> > make script (and this is probably a good thing). So, dpkg-buildpackage
> > should simply execute debian/rules.
>
> It
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> So, dpkg-buildpackage would call "make debian/whatever" with following
> environments:
Minor glitch - currently, policy doesn't mandate that debian/rules be a
make script (and this is probably a good thing). So, dpkg-buildpackage
should simply exe
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Bill Mitchell wrote:
>
>
> There are at least two possible ways in which commercial organizations
> might release .debs: (1) via non-free on the debian distribution sites,
> and (2) by putting the .debs on their commercial CDs and/or their own
> web sites. Obviously, the de
On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Luis Francisco Gonzalez wrote:
> > So why don't you bookmark the bug page on policy? Any proposal
> > shall show up as a wishlist bug, and formal amendments shall show up
> > as regular bugs. The bug reports shall be retitles to show the
> > current status.
> >
> >
On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Darren Benham wrote:
> I'd say announcing it to the "general" developer public would be a courtesy if
> nothing else. There might be an issue that someone feels important enough (or
> important enough to his packages) that he'd want to participate but not, in
> general, be a p
On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Shaleh wrote:
> Um, out of a group of what 200 or 300 some odd developers, only *15*
> voted. Is this good enough for decisions? That is roughly 5%.
Yup.
It's fine.
Lots of people aren't on the policy list (meaning, that they don't care,
presumably). I didn't vote (or ev
On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 06:28:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Since you are ignoring all the discussion that has gone on
> > before, you obviously have far more cogent arguments than have been
> > advanced here before. I am eager to hear th
On 17 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Sure. But the GPL dies not need the software. The GPL stands alone.
>
> Santiago> We would have just to agree on the definition of the term
> Santiago> "stand-alone".
>
> Stand alone -- not leaning on or dependeing on something
> else. The
[This is my second attempt to send this message. The first failed because
I mis-splet an email address. Oops. Still, it's just as well, since I
was wrong on several points]
I have chosen not to post this message to -devel, since I feel that
-policy is the correct forum.
I would like to briefly
This summary won't be as professional looking as Manoj's are, but I want
to condense a few points:
1) Free standards are desirable
We seem to more or less all agree on this.
2) Non-free, but still distributable standards, should be distributed
The value to debian of including the standards it f
On Sun, 16 Aug 1998, Drake Diedrich wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 1998 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> > My step-father is a lawyer, in the UK, and he says that there is no
> > special exclusion for copyright on licenses - i.e. licenses can be
> > copyrighted,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 10:26:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[The next section is Marcus, of course - manoj is double-indented]
> My fear is that people will be satisfied with documents belonging in the
> "verbatim" section. For example, if sof
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
> > You have heard incorrectly. The GPL comes with this immutable
> > license:
> > __
> > GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> >Version 2, June 199
On 14 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> I agree. I also say it applies to licenses as well. If not,
> >> please provide reasons (which I shall turn around and use for
> >> standards, then).
>
>
On 12 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jules> The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that a separate
> Jules> distribution tag is appropriate.
>
> Jules> '
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, [iso-8859-1] Adrián De León wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
>
> >I vote for maintaining the 'sanctity' of main. The only exceptions that I
> >personally would grant are: 1) legal licenses (e.g. the GPL itself) and
> >2) short, relevant personal communications (such as
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that mutable strandards are an anathema: supporting a
> > plethora of modified almost standards dilutes the benefits of a
> > standard, the strength of a standard lies in the fact that *everyon
On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 1998 at 03:18:05PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > I think we differ in where we draw the line, and that is
> > essentially opinion. What do others on the policy list think?
>
> Hello,
>
> I want to add here that it may
On Sat, 8 Aug 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 08, 1998 at 05:46:14PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Aug 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > b) Non-technical documents.
> > > I listed the following:
> > >
> >
On Sat, 8 Aug 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> b) Non-technical documents.
> I listed the following:
>
> 1. Trademarks, Copyrights
I'm playing devil's advocate here, I admit. But why shouldn't copyright's
be free? I mean, obviously I can't change the copyright under which you
place your piec
On 8 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are two nebuously related ideas in this message.
> __
>
> I think I want to differentiate between the kinds of changes
> that we are talking about here. If I wr
On Sat, 8 Aug 1998, Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> > 3.2. Deadlines for Tabling Discussions
> > --
> >
> ...
> >
> > If a consensus is reached by the policy group, then the maintainers
> > shall enter the amendment into the Policy document, announce the
>
On 7 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Martin> b) A set of web pages covering recent topics has to be set
> Martin> up and maintained. This could be master/~srivasta/ since
> Martin> it's not "that" official but could also be somewhere on
> Martin> the main server. [or use a d
. That would make the noun
'standard' meaningless. However, I do feel that it is reasonable to want
to modify the sgml document which renders to a standard. For example, I
take the HTML 4 standard, incorporate in some new features, and title the
resulting document 'HTML 5? A proposal by Ju
On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I also like this proposal but I don't volunteer, some jobs should
> not be connected to me ;-)
>
> However I'd like to add:
>
> a) A weekly status has to be posted to debian-policy.
>
> b) A set of web pages covering recent topics has to be set
>
It's probably worth adding that since RMS had his high-profile 'attack' on
a man wearing an O'Reilly T-shirt, O'Reilly have come to consider the
issues.
The mod_perl book, I believe, will have at least one chapter free. Whilst
this is not yet 'there', it's a foot in the door (www.modperl.com).
I
All interested in release goals, I suggest we move this thread over to
-policy, where it belongs, IMHO..
On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Scott McDermott wrote:
> Raul Miller on Mon, Jul 27, 1998 at 02:05:21PM -0400:
> > > Are there any relevant programs that do not support MANPATH and
> > > INFOPATH?
> >
>
On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Yann Dirson wrote:
>
> * DTM support (Definitive Type Manager, formerly Debian Type Manager)
>
> Federico di Gregorio: (La)TeX support is not yet ready.
Is there a URL for this one?
>
> * GPG as standard signature for packages
>
> Marco d'Itri: probably GPG is not re
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Jean Pierre LeJacq wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> > Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Philip Hands:
> > > > Is nogroup guaranteed never to own any files ?
> > >
> > > The Policy manual does not guarantee it, but it's the only reason for
>
On 22 Jul 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jules> I don't think it would be appropriate to post it to
> Jules> debian-devel. It's a policy issue. It belongs here. I
>
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Lacking a formal process, I would still like to reasonable
> > sure that the change indeed is something to which there is no serious
> > objection; and that requires, I think, possibly an announcement
--On Fri, Jul 10, 1998 10:13 pm +0200 "James Troup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> That's all that comes to mind right now, any other suggestions?
>
> That we release slink before 2038 or so? These goals (the desirable
> ones, that is) aren't viab
[Moving this discussion to -policy, please remove -devel from headers if
following up]
[The issue here is whether the archives should automatically keep backups,
in case of harmful upgrades like the recent libc6]
--On Mon, Jul 6, 1998 4:49 pm +1000 "Herbert Xu"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a
--On Fri, Jul 3, 1998 7:09 pm -0500 "Rob Browning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> app should look for a app.gtkrc file in /etc or somewhere else. But I
>> would like a more broad discussion on what we feel a conffile is. I
>> feel that /etc is getting fill
On 1 Jul 1998, James Troup wrote:
> [ Replying to myself, whee ]
>
> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If you want to generate a GNUpg key and send it to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], it'll be added.
>
> For, hopefully obvious, security reasons please PGP sign the mail.
>
> Also gnupg is
--On Mon, Jun 29, 1998 5:59 pm -0700 "Ben Gertzfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> "Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jason> I'm certain we don't need another alias for this list :>
>
> Jason> Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] All
> Jason> of th
--On Fri, Jun 26, 1998 9:08 am -0500 "Rob Browning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I was just using that as an example of an existing package that had
multiple
>> minuses in the version.
>>
>> I didn't make it up, I got it out of hamm:
>>
>> ha
--On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 9:55 pm +0100 "Philip Hands" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Philip> The ``put the painful bit after the dash in the debian
>> Philip> version'' suggestion is no good I'm afraid, because the
>> Philip> orig.tar.gz ends up giving the impression that Debian has the
>> Phili
--On Wed, Jun 24, 1998 5:55 am -0400 "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I took a look at putting virtual package versions into dpkg, and
> realized that there were some undefined issues:
>
> (1) If a package provides a package version and some other package
> conflicts with that package
--On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 2:59 pm -0400 "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Anyway, this is obviously somewhat of a religious issue, and having
>> said that I whole heartedly agree with Manoj (that there are *zero*
>> technical arguments against epochs), I will now shut up and ignore
>> this
--On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 6:47 pm +0100 "Adrian Bridgett"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 10:36:11PM -0400, Shaleh wrote:
>> I have seen numerous people post Intentions to package apps that are
>> already being worked on. Please read the wnpp (it is made for a
>> reason). And
In general, I'm not a big fan of 'me too' messages, but sometimes they are
appropriate.
I'd therefor like to say that I agree pretty much exactly with what Jim
just said. That's what we need, all right.
Jules
/+---+-\
| Jelibean a
--On Mon, May 18, 1998 8:25 pm +0200 "Remco Blaakmeer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
>
>> Bob Hilliard wrote:
>> > While testing the install disks v2.0.6, menu failed to install
>> > due to unsatisfied dependencies. (This is the subject of another
>> >
--On Mon, May 18, 1998 12:46 pm -0400 "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Oliver Elphick wrote:
>> 3. Should there be policy on this matter for database packages in
particular?
>
> I would like to see a way to preemptively indicate that the data
> should not be deleted. In a busy enviro
rsion
structures - a hard problem. I suspect that altering the @INC priorities
will solve most problems, though...
Yours,
Jules Bean
/+---+-\
| Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd|
| Jules aka
ware this is irrational].
In effect, in means that the first level of enforcement of policy is the
general Debian community. I think this is good. If things get out of hand,
then presumably the leader or the committee step in to give a definitive
answer.
> manoj
> who likes
75 matches
Mail list logo
