On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 10:04:09AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Norbert Nemec wrote:
> > IMO, packages should under no circumstances complain
> > about anything if it is avoidable at all. No matter if there is a automatic
> > configuration system or not. We should simply make it
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 10:07:46AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Norbert Nemec wrote:
> > Ok, but the problem I see, is that you are forced to answer all the
> > questions right there in the middle of the installation. If you don't want
> > to (or can't) decid
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 03:46:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 08:03:19AM +0000, Norbert Nemec wrote:
> > I do not talk about where packages should get their configuration
> > information from, I did talk about what they do, if they do not have the
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 11:42:16AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > There are reasonable defaults for all these things, and they can all
> > be fixed after install. But it seems to me that the possibility of
> > having your system suddenly get trashed for no apparent reason makes
> > the nagging
Ok, thanks for your reactions. I know, guys like me can get on ones
nerves... :-)
I'm moving this thread to debian-policy, where I should have started it
rigth at the beginning. Please reply there.
I knew there would be people working on that problem, but actually, my idea
goes into some complete
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:14:18PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 03:32:35PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
>
> > > Can you provide any positive arguments in *favor* of undocumented(7)?
>
> > One thing undocumented(7) does is suggest so
6 matches
Mail list logo
