[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josip Rodin) wrote on 15.02.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 08:58:00AM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> > The only time I see where deviating from that rule would be justified is
> > when two -dev packages Depend: on some other package
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oohara Yuuma) wrote on 15.02.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 15 Feb 2003 08:58:00 +0200,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) wrote:
> > We have too many conflicting -dev packages.
> Because we have the .so -> .so.x.y.z symlinks.
Don't bother repl
We have too many conflicting -dev packages.
Suppose I had two projects - one wanting to use Berkeley DB 4.1, one for
an Apache module. I'd need to constantly reinstall the various -dev
packages because apache-dev depends on libdb2-dev, and libdb2-dev and
libdb4.1-dev conflict.
Now suppose t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Julian Gilbey) wrote on 12.10.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 10:54:32PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > It would acutually:
> > >
> > > VHOSTROOT/ - root directory for all my virtual hosts
> > > +- / - root directory for a single virtual host
> > >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wichert Akkerman) wrote on 01.03.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'll make this a proposal then:
>
> Section 5.2 of policy currently dictates that debian/rules has to be
> a makefile. While this is good practice, the only thing that is essential
> is that it is an executable
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 28.02.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> > > I would like to propose that the debian/rules file is allowed to be
> > > non-makefile. Any kind of a program that can do the required stuff can
> > > be a debian/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josip Rodin) wrote on 28.02.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I would like to propose that the debian/rules file is allowed to be
> non-makefile. Any kind of a program that can do the required stuff can be a
> debian/rules file. We shouldn't prohibit it when someone e.g. writes a sh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josip Rodin) wrote on 01.03.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> These two things aren't demanded by Policy AFAICT, it just so happens that
> they're possible to be done. Had we used perl or shell as rules file
> previously, there would be similar things that would be made nonstandard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 01.03.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Alex" == Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Alex> It can be done the easy way, or the hard way. What you described is
> the Alex> hard way. Why can't it be done the easy way?
>
> If people r
I'm right now working on the gnustep-base family of packages, and Lintian
does not seem to think the -dbg package is right:
W: gnustep-base0-dbg: non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink
usr/lib/GNUstep/System/Libraries/ix86/linux-gnu/gnu-gnu-gnu-xgps/libgnustep-base_d.so.0.9.1
usr/lib/GNUstep/System/L
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess) wrote on 24.10.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Brian May wrote:
> > How about something like this:
> >
> > Messages should only be displayed on the console if:
> >
> > - it represents a slow task, eg compiling modules (emacs) or compiling
> > ls-R files (latex). Of cour
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland) wrote on 21.08.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> right now I don't know *where* to look after installing foo-doc.
/var/lib/dpkg/info/foo-doc.list.
> (Yes, both of the above points are rather facetious...)
Me too.
> > Besides, it would be nice to have many rfc pa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josip Rodin) wrote on 15.04.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 03:14:07AM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> > > > The RFC docs currently reside under /usr/doc/doc-rfc. The second
> > > > doc is redundant, which is also part of the package name. It should
> > > > be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess) wrote on 06.08.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Kai Henningsen wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Julian Gilbey) wrote on 18.07.99 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Seconded.
> >
> > Seconded.
>
> Note that th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland) wrote on 04.08.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 03-Aug-99, 11:56 (CDT), Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I second this. BTW, where are the policy changing rules written down? I
> > just looked and couldn't find
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Braakman) wrote on 02.08.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is there any case where one would want a Build-Conflicts? Allowing
> them will complicate all the code that deals with build dependencies,
> whether they are used or not.
The only one I can think of is configure pi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Julian Gilbey) wrote on 18.07.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Seconded.
Seconded.
MfG Kai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland) wrote on 17.07.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> BTW, both this proposal (#40766) and the general clean-up proposal
> (#40767) are currently stalled with only one official seconder (Joey
> Hess). I'd guess that Hamish generally approves...but unless I get at
> least
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 29.07.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Every package install files in /usr/doc/.
Well, every package *should* do that.
MfG Kai
** Proposal at the end!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Goerzen) wrote on 04.02.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 02:07:19PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > > "most" isn't good enough here. I know from past experience :-)
> >
> > Do you mean the local mail server on a Debian system ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Brinkmann) wrote on 09.02.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> QUESTION: Can one port have a package with the same name as a package in
> binary-all? What would happen if I would upload a package "makedev" with
> Architecture: hurd-i386? Would it replace only the sym
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) wrote on 14.01.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Oliver Elphick writes ("Re: egcc maintainer "):
> ...
> >
> > However, one of the group should be nominated to have the prime
> > responsibility for the package. This maintainer's address should be
> > listed in the Grou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 15.01.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > Santiago Vila writes ("Bug#29770: Policy contradicts itself about
> > /etc/aliases"): ...
> > > Policy says:
> > >
> > > "A package may not modify a configuration file of an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Briscoe-Smith) wrote on 05.11.98 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> >You must be kidding.
[...]
> My main problems with your proposal are:
[...]
> 3) It involves deliberately invalidating dpkg's database. It's fine
> that dpkg is capable of follow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) wrote on 27.08.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 27 Aug 1998, Jim Pick wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 26, Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >It seems like everybody agrees on switching to exim, but nothing as
> > > >been
> > > I don't think so.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 18.09.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> __
> If two or more packages use the same configuration file, one of these
> packages has to be defined as *owner* of the configuration fi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Engel) wrote on 30.08.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 1998 at 08:44:43PM +0200, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
> > agreed. why don't ask the fhs team why they left the link for this single
> > package ?
>
> They probably knew it was a contentious, potentially div
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) wrote on 26.07.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) wrote on 25.07.98 in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > % ls -al /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/doc
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Ju
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) wrote on 25.07.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > % ls -al /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/doc
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jul 24 09:40
> > /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/doc -> ../../../doc/X11
> one respect to the package, and if you didn't have /usr/X11R6 mounted fro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jean Pierre LeJacq) wrote on 22.07.98 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> I'm not sure if I agree. I maintain the http server, wn, for
> debian. At startup, it switches to user nobody. If this policy
> is adopted, it could not write to its log file.
Does it not open the log file bef
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) wrote on 30.06.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think it's important to at the same time make it easy for bug
> submitters and easy for package maintainers. I don't think we're out
> of line asking a bug submitter to check if the bug is already
> reported. For i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 15.06.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This worked. Thanks! This has been a long standing nit on my system. Would
> running updatedb in the background be appropriate for the manpage package?
*NO!!!*
I have enough finds going over my 13 GB disk space daily,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) wrote on 07.06.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hm, these days APT is a replacement for the mountable, ftp and http
> methods in dselect, it does many more things than any one of the methods
> alone.
Does it do logging, like mountable does? If so, how? That's the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hamish Moffatt) wrote on 10.05.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, May 10, 1998 at 11:00:00AM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> > > On 2 May 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > > Packages only have to specify the first three digits of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 03.05.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 2 May 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > Packages only have to specify the first three digits of the
> > version number in the `Standards-Version' field of their source
> > packages.
>
> "only three" is "thre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raul Miller) wrote on 26.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Enrique Zanardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not a dpkg expert, but AFAIK modifying directly the dpkg databases
> > (yes, almost everything under var/lib/dpkg are dpkg databases) is a
> > Wrong Thing (TM) In the cur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 08.03.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I run a caching only server. What does a bind reload every
> couple of minutes do for me? Why am I doing this?
1. It does nothing bad that I can see. It does not seem to discard the
cache, for example.
2.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herbert Xu) wrote on 09.03.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) wrote on 08.03.98 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > Just because I have b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) wrote on 13.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 13 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > libc6-dev (<= 2.0.7pre1-4). I suggest that the next version of
> > libc6-dev does not have symlinks in /usr/include (libc-kheaders shall
> > create directories in /usr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 16.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian>> I think that conffiles are usually configuration files, and
Ian>> configuration files always belong in /etc. I think it would be a
Ian>> very exceptional con
snip ---
This package was debianized by Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Mon, 31 Mar 1997 22:31:39 +0200.
It was put together from <ftp://ftp.germany.eu.net/pub/documents/rfc>,
<ftp://venera.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc-editor>, and
<http://www.isi.edu/cgi-bin/rfc-ed/>. See DEBIAN.ho
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 01.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The criteria should be:
> a) Do you need a R6 version of that progeram, and you are sure no
> other version shall do? then use /usr/X11R6/bin
> b) Or else, use /usr/bin/X11
To me, that means the package
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Hands) wrote on 11.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Hands) wrote on 10.04.98 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > > I have one point to add to this. Handling files not mentioned
> > > > in the *.list file was one way of several packa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Hands) wrote on 10.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I have one point to add to this. Handling files not mentioned
> > in the *.list file was one way of several packages to handle/edit a
> > common file, for example, if a bunch of packages need /etc/foo to
> > exi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Marcelo_E=2E_Magall=F3n?) wrote on 08.04.98
in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Could lintian check for files installed outside standard directories
> (those the FHS specifies). I accidentally made a .deb file that installed
> files in /home/mmagallo/blah/blas/debian/tmp/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) wrote on 06.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think we should have a more formal definition of Debian's files, and
> > which is the right way to parse them...
>
> Or, for slink, we just strip down dpkg (take ou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Remco Blaakmeer) wrote on 07.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This behaviour will not change,
> because it is very impractical to make every file in the packaging system
> a conffile (think about calculating an md5sum for every file in a package
> on a slow system).
Actually,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 18.03.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As I mentioned in a previsou message, I do not like this
> trend. I understand people are annoyed at spurious bug reports, but
> the goal is to have packages without bugs, and strictly prohibiting
> automate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) wrote on 08.03.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Just because I have bind does not mean I want things to be
> > uploaded, or if I have sendmail that I want a queue run when the
> > connection comes up,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yann Dirson) wrote on 07.03.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
> >If packages were to include a du -S output (unlike the du -s
> However, I would strongly advise not to use a standalone file like old
> .du files and .md5sums: the largest part of these f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 25.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Christian" == Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Christian> On 25 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: [snip]
> >> I would propose that no package keep files in user home directories
> >> as a policy.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Browning) wrote on 22.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It's an old observation, but how to you recursively search an html
> tree for the info you want (like Ctrl-s in info, Meta-s in emacs, or
> "/" in manpages with less?)
And the old answer is, of course, that just as with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 22.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I personally do not find the info keys incomprehensible, but I
> spent some time learning how to use info, and in a number of cases
> info is my preferred documentation format.
There's no logic behind those
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess) wrote on 22.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > As to the conffile not being a configuration file, I think you
> > are wrong on that issue (you doubtless feel I am wrong). I think this
> > is a time for some deadlock breakage to occur.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregor Hoffleit) wrote on 21.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > > distributions. Frankly speaking, this looks a bit like the
> `C:\WINDOWS'
> > > approach: just add a new directory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 16.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey>> This isn't a debating society, Manoj.
> No, it isn't. I had hoped that this was a forum that people
> could have a reasonable discourse on, without ad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 16.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think this topic is now moot, but ain't it curious that the
> two largest (extreme value) packages were quoted to show how long it
> takes to calculate the size? If you look at the time taken to
No.
> ca
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 16.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Charles" == Charles Briscoe-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Charles> The tools to exploit this information aren't here yet, but I
> Charles> -have- put a fair amount of thought into it, and I'm
> Charles> co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 13.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 13 Feb 1998, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote:
>
> > They are useful to check how much disk space is needed under each
> > directory before installing a package;
>
> Are you *so* short of disk space that the standard head
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Browning) wrote on 09.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Note, that md5sums was only introduced by deb-make some time ago and never
> > has been widely discussed. AFAIR, a better solution than md5sums files
> > would be to st
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) wrote on 09.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Even that's a bit icky; since by the definition in , local?
> should be locally defined and not reserved or structured in anyway. But
> the reality is we either have to hack and make some new
> facilities for the ess
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) wrote on 03.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Christian Schwarz:
> > Well, first of all current policy says ``Every package must have
> > exactly one maintainer at a time.'' (see section 2.3.2 The maintainer
> > of a package). So this is the case. Whether it `should'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Maor) wrote on 02.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ian makes a good point that we shouldn't use different words to refer
> to the same action. So I'd go for closes rather than fixes.
I just realized, we're talking about adding a state "fixed" to the bug
system. Now if we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 02.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What do you think of the following policy for maintainer fields:
>
> ---cut-here-
>
> Each maintainer gets a (within the Debian project) unique `mainta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Will Lowe) wrote on 30.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > [6.3] "no program should ever reference anything in /usr/share."
> No clue. Might be becase /usr/share could be shared across different
> architectures (hence the name) and ther
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yann Dirson) wrote on 28.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ben Pfaff writes:
> > - change the current DB schema to be able to store different
> > "Maintainer:" email addresses for each person
> >
> > This is the best solution IMHO. It is more flexible and doesn't f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) wrote on 28.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> everyone do "dpkg --status package" and cut&paste anyway? Many people
> can't spell my username from memory anyhow...)
Your username? There's nothing weird about it that I can see. Your
hostname, now ... ;-)
MfG K
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luis Francisco Gonzalez) wrote on 28.01.98 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> could someone explain to me again why only source updates can close bug
> reports? Does this mean that bugs closed with non-source uploads have to
> closed "by hand" or that they can't be closed at all?
I th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Browning) wrote on 19.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 2. Build it as part of the post install, and possibly provide scripts
> > for other packages to modify it.
>
> The packages can use update-alternatives here to make sure
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Frey) wrote on 17.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I today just found out, that my magicfilter violates the newest policy
> by rewritting /etc/printcap, which is lpr|lprng's confile.
> What would be the correct solution for this problem? Shall I require that
> the lpr|lprn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 17.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 15 Jan, Guy Maor wrote:
> > Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>Fixes: 98765 98766 9
> >
> > So dinstall will be scanning for this field, and not looking in the
> > changelog? In other words, this will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 14.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Is it necessary that we're allowed to change the content of documents in
> > main? I would like to package the standard documents from W3, but they
> > don't allow to change the content. And this makes sense, because this
> > documen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) wrote on 15.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >> * a shared unstripped lib, compiled with -DDEBUG, with the same
> > >>name.soname of the runtime lib, installed in a different dir
> > >> (/usr/lib/debug) which *ISN'T* in /etc/ld.so.conf
> > >
> > > W
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian White) wrote on 15.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > The current policy does not allow packages to touch /etc/crontab
> > > anymore. This is because we don't allow packages to modify other
> > > packages configuration files.
> >
> > We should also correct the policy to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) wrote on 15.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Christian" == Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >> On another note, what about things like cron, which don't *need*
> >> reload -- it tracks its conffiles,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) wrote on 14.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > "Martin" == Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 1998 at 03:16:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> >> Some people might want to be able to prefilter their mail into
> >> f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) wrote on 15.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Here's a paste-in of the `sendmail-8.8.8' ruleset 5. The part after
So sendmail defaults to using "+" (and in an IMHO only half-implemented
way - why am I not surprised?). So?
Exim can use anything at all, both
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 15.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 10:17:26AM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> > I thought that the convention was to use ``minused'' addresses for this:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > That's certainly the qmail way of doing things, and I seem to re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 13.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream version,
> the version number should be changed to the following format in
> such cases: `96-05-01', `96-12-24', and starting with the year
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 13.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The current policy does not allow packages to touch /etc/crontab anymore.
> This is because we don't allow packages to modify other packages
> configuration files.
We should also correct the policy to say that _no_
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 13.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>* (As current policy says) the person doing the non-maintainer upload
> should send a bug report to the bug tracking system explaining his/her
> changes. This is extremly important so that the usual mai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 13.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So, if a package upload fixes some bugs, the maintainer should include
> some tags in the debian/changelog file that use the following syntax
> (Perl regexp syntax, case-insensitive):
>
>/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 13.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> No program may depend on environment variables to get reasonable
> defaults. (That's because these environment variables would have
> to be set in a system-wide configuration file like /etc/profile,
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) wrote on 26.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [You (Kai Henningsen)]
> >What we need most is a coherent explanation of what happens, why it
> >happens, and why the usual strategies are right or wrong.
>
> >Seems as if the ldso main
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Browning) wrote on 23.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Adam P. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think you're (a bit) unduly alarmed. From my interpretation, it's
> > not a bug to call `ldconfig' from postinst, it just shouldn't be
> > necessary. So why do it if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hamish Moffatt) wrote on 20.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> of non-official sites. Does dpkg check the MD5sum with
> the one in the Packages file or in the archive itself?
I think dpkg-mountable does. At least it always tells me which packages
pass a MD5 check before even st
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Ellis) wrote on 19.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> And the instant someone provides us with free software equivilant to ssh
> or pgp, we'll move to use it. We need the functionality, unfortunatly
> sometimes you have to use what you can get.
You _do_ know that there's a
t;everything below /etc is a conffile" is what people expect.
After all, that's the FSSTND definition of /etc.
> Ok, let's do it for init.d script which are likely to be changed.
That's all of them.
> But this does not explain why all of them should be conffiles by policy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 19.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Could somebody please explain the rationale for having *all*
> /etc/init.d/* scripts as conffiles?
Because they are.
> Please, don't say "you can deactivate the service by modifying the
> scripts",
Example from my ma
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) wrote on 21.11.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I don't know whether Ian does, but I do. I find
>
> cp /very/long/path/foo /very/long/path/bar baz
>
> a lot harder to read than
>
> cp /very/long/bath/{foo,bar} baz
>
> And your suggestion of
>
> (cd /ve
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Ellis) wrote on 13.11.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Because it is that way now" is NOT necessarily a valid argument for
> keeping things the same way. Slavery used to be common, East Germany used
> to exist. That is not a valid arguement for the continuance of East
> Ge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard G. Roberto) wrote on 28.10.97 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> On 27 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > What problems are term limits supposed to solve, exactly?
>
> I'm glad you asked. I've been involved in a number of
> volunteer organizations, many of which were o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 27.10.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Use the power for people who voted for him --- (bruce
> supports his constituency by giving people *yet* more unpaid work and
> responsibilitites. Darn. That doesn't work. Bruce takes away juicy
> packages
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 26.10.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Here is an incomplete list of changes that would produce lots of work:
>
>/usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc(this affects _every_ package!)
>/usr/man -> /usr/share/man
>/usr/dict -> /usr/share/dict
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 24.10.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Kai" == Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kai>> So then here's a proposal for a policy:
Kai>> If a list participant (who is otherwise eligible for th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Lynbech on satellite) wrote on 21.10.97 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> How about something like:
I like it, especially as it points out why all this is important, and that
people should actually use the heads they have.
MfG Kai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 24.10.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Joost" == Joost Kooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Joost> I agree that indeed only very, very occasionally the
> Joost> mailinglists get disturbed in a way that ought to call for
> Joost> measures. So rarely in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Pick) wrote on 23.10.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Please tell me where I am wrong.
>
> In my head, at least, I haven't found a single flaw in my proposal.
> Maybe there is a flaw, and the point just hasn't been driven home
> to me yet.
>
> Most of the opposition appears to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila Doncel) wrote on 24.10.97 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> > > `96May05' is the same as `1996.05.05'.)
> 1. Preferred: .MM.DD or .MM
I'd suggest using -MM[-DD] instead. That one is an ISO standard (8601,
IIRC).
MfG Kai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fabrizio Polacco) wrote on 23.10.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Bruce Perens wrote:
> >
> > We recently had some conversation on rules of discourse for the
> > mailing lists. At that time, discussion by most developers was
> > strongly against them. Only myself and two other peop
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
