On Wed 25 Jul 2001, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Paul Slootman wrote:
> > On Wed 25 Jul 2001, Adam Heath wrote:
> > >
> > > What happens if the admin has set certain permissions on the device
> > > files, and
> > > you go and recr
; already exist. Well, what happens if I remove only some of the device files
> in a set? Will the missing ones get recreated?
This sounds like a job for an extra flag on MAKEDEV, to only create
devices that don't exist.
Paul Slootman
Please cc me, I'm not subscribed to debian-policy@lists.debian.org
e via a (low-priority) debconf message.
Thanks,
Paul Slootman
case, the user has chosen to install stuff for ISDN;
asking whether the ISDN devices may be created comes across as being a
bit retarded IMO.
Please CC me, I'm not on d-policy.
Paul Slootman
solutely no sense to start one
> daemon and not start the other, or something).
I suppose that might work. Are there currently any packages out there
that install more than one init.d script? If so, how is the name of the
init.d script determined?
Paul Slootman
--
home: [EMAIL PROTECT
;;
> esac
Here you test for unknown actions, and continue anyway. Not very
consistent with the exit 103 above?
Paul Slootman
--
home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wurtel.demon.nl/
work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.murphy.nl/
debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
isdn4linux: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.isdn4linux.org/
On Mon 28 Aug 2000, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 2828T153322+0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
> > anyway. BTW, what is the list of "build essential packages"? I'm
> > assuming that gcc libc6-dev etc. don't need to be put in. However,
> > this isn'
ote that the latest isdnutils uses ip-up.d/00-isdnutils and
ip-down.d/99-isdnutils.
Paul Slootman
--
home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wurtel.demon.nl/
work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.murphy.nl/
debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
isdn4linux: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.isdn4linux.de/
;m in a position to comment much further. I've generally just
been following upstream configs in that respect.
Let me know when there's been a decision :-)
Paul Slootman
--
home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.1.1
Severity: normal
The docs contained in /usr/doc/debian-policy state that docs should go
in /usr/share/doc/.
If any package should comply with policy, it's debian-policy!
Paul Slootman
-- System Information
Debian Release: potato
Kernel Version:
. Reminds me
of .exe extensions too much.
Additionally, it's not that common to have a logfile named after the
_package_ the daemon or whatever is in. Often the logfile is named
after the executable that generates the log.
Paul Slootman
--
home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | work: [EMAIL PROTECT
es shouldn't do
anything with the stuff under /dev, but that isn't spelled out.
So, I'd like some clarity on this ASAP please. What are your opinions on
this? Apparently the pcmcia packages do things to /dev/modem, and other
things such as /dev/mouse and /dev/pilot are also manipulated
On Thu 22 Oct 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If policy is changed that for portability issues immediate "normal"
> > NMUs are permitted, then I'd have no problem in doing this.
>
> Well! I have no p
ug reports submitted by a particular
> > person (i.e. email address) ? This would help here (especially if a
> > constraint could be added such as "older than x days").
>
> I wanted such a thing also already!
I think I'll submit a wishlist bug against the BTS. Or is it
ld be added such as "older than x days").
> But again, the binary or source NMU issue is a moot point, licensing
> wise, until the management of source in the Debian archive is fixed.
I'm in total agreement here.
Paul Slootman
--
home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | work: [EMAIL P
se time; it's a continual
process. Also, the archives are accessable (and mirrored) at all times.
> look like ? So far we have seen two proposals:
> i. Simply have them side by side, with some kind of way of making
> obsolete sources disappear eventually
This one is it.
Paul Slootman
On Mon 19 Oct 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Paul Slootman writes ("Bug#27906: PROPOSED] Binary-only NMU's"):
> ...
> > If you're saying that each and every binary version should be accompanied
> > with corresponding source only when a release is made, then the w
the diffs
severity: important; that would prevent the package being released until
the bug is closed (and hence the patches being included in a new upload),
right?
Paul Slootman
--
home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands
as that will probably
also fix any potential problems I come across.
Aside: I've watched debian-devel and debian-private deteriorate into a
playing ground for IMHO anal discussions about the most unlikely
licensing nits. I fully agree that Debian should do its best to comply
with such
what it
does during install ("Must fetchmail be started on system boot, or only
when a PPP connection is made?").
> It also makes things more ... seemingly universal.
I think it would lead to confusion; it's currently clear that the stuff in
/etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d is for d
(happily!) missing a lot of traffic!
Paul Slootman
--
home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands
21 matches
Mail list logo
