On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20010213T084841-0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I dislike it. It's possible some package will exist that is _designed_
> > to fire off daily status reports by cron. We shouldn't prohibit such
> > things without reason.
>
> An example is vrms.
An
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Jakob Bøhm wrote:
> Placing crypto software in any part of the main
> archive still has a very important legal problem:
> Sorry, to be putting down a nice idea, but I would
> hate to see the project getting in trouble from
> checking only US laws.
'non-US' seems to be a mis
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:15:59AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
[...]
> > So, why not hack X[2]? Make the library look in /etc/X11/app-defaults, then
> > in the old location. Make policy that states that packages depending on the
> > X 4 version of that li
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > if [ -d /usr/doc ]; then
> > # Well, we still need to handle this, at least for the time being
[...]
>
> All this will fail if at some time in the future /usr/doc is a symlink to
> /usr/share/doc.
Then replace t
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> >
> > s/reload in the postinst/restart in the postinst/
>
> If you maintain a package, you _wrote_ the init script. You know if it
> supports reload, and if so, you use it. Otherwise, you know it suppor
On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> For example, by using reload in the postinst, the downtime of services can
> probably be minimized at an upgrade (instead using stop in the prerm and
> start in the postinst).
s/reload in the postinst/restart in the postinst/
1. 'reload' is not a ma
On 6 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Remco" == Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Remco> Then, if this really good scheme is agreed upon, the whole
> Remco> transition can be done between the potato release and the
> Remco> re
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> "wuss" is US slang for "wimp" or perhaps "coward". What netgod probably
> means is that this proposal is basically a cop-out, postponing the work
> until after potato's release. I agree with that, but the powers that be
> regrettably do not seem to
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
> Therefore, I propose that Packages intended for for the distributions
> code-named "Potato" (and "Slink") continue to use /usr/doc. This will
> ensure that Potato is consistent. Plus, this gives us an entire
> release cycle to find a smooth transition pa
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Debian currently has 10 thousand dependancies [1]. I was proposing 1
> additional dependancy per package with man page, which does *not* double
> that number. 2216 packages contain man pages.
So you want to add a dependency to all of those packages, because
On Mon, 31 May 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > At 14:48 +0100 1999-05-30, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > >I second this, and propose that the section should be reworded as
> > >follows:
> > >
> > >3.3.4. Boot-time initialisation
> > >---
> > >
> > > There used to be anothe
On Wed, 26 May 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I agree with leaving them so later developers might choose to pick them
> up and close them. But others (like libc4) should just be trashed.
In that case, you might want to re-open the bugs against the ncftp
package. On May 11th, the maintainer of
On 14 May 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Remco" == Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Remco> Or change lynx to search for the .html.gz if it can't find the
> Remco> .html file. There are web servers that can do this alr
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Anders Hammarquist wrote:
> But the way I read the policy it says to compress html, so it that case
> it needs to be changed (or at least clarified).
Or change lynx to search for the .html.gz if it can't find the .html file.
There are web servers that can do this already, so
On Mon, 10 May 1999, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
> > Shouldn't that use `/etc/init.d/apache reload' instead? Most things,
> > as far as I know, will work that way, sed -e 's/apache/$DAEMON/'. I
> > think it would be good to display the /etc/init.d/* method in this
> > policy item, as a way of do
On Wed, 5 May 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 03:39:02AM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > Yes, I'm sorry to have missed that. Both of you are obviously right.
> >
> > Now, I ask the same question again but with a little difference: Since
> &g
On Wed, 5 May 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You're mistaken.
>
> The DFSG tells us whether software goes into non-free or not.
>
> All software in contrib is DFSG-free.
On 5 May 1999, James Troup wrote:
> No it does not. Please read the DFSG. Policy defines what can and
> can't go in main.
Some people have been arguing that probrams that are only useful if you
use them to talk to a non-free server should not be in main.
Since the DFSG defines which packages can go into 'main' and which can't,
can somebody please point out which part of the DFSG these programs fail?
Remco
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, mike shupp wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Sami Dalouche wrote:
>
> > I don't understand this :
> .
> > 2.1.3 The contrib section
> > [...]
> > * packages which we don't want to support because they are too
> >buggy, and [...]
> >
> > These package, if they ar
On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 04:25:10PM +0300, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> >
> > I would prefere to use /var/mnt/* for this purpose.
> > It mimics the distinction between /tmp and /var/tmp , and /var is
> > warranteed to be local and writable.
>
> I like thi
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On 13 Apr 1999, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > J.H.M. Dassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >I don't think so. Please keep them, or consider moving them under /mnt.
> > >Personally, I'd think it would be a good i
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> This is not quite the case. FHS 2.0, like previous versions, aims for
> somewhere between best practice and the common (Linux) practice.
> Mostly Linux, actually, because Linux generally has a much cleaner
> filesystem hierarchy layout.
This being the
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Example: There is no pine.deb but a pinepgp package should be
> > allowed to depend on it.
>
> Okay, that sounds reasonable. How about only doing this for packages in
> main?
Do you mean that a package in main cou
On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
>
> > But that doesn't speed up dpkg's -s, -l, -S and -L options (and all the
> > others that need to read the packages database, of course). That is what
> > this prop
On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
> Doesn't apt already use a cache database? Seems the code is alreaqdy
> written, then..
But that doesn't speed up dpkg's -s, -l, -S and -L options (and all the
others that need to read the packages database, of course). That is what
this proposal is about, sp
On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Anthony Towns wrote:
> [please direct followups appropriately, this digression doesn't really
> belong on -policy]
>
> On Sun, May 31, 1998 at 09:26:38PM -0700, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> > > "Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> > Anthony> (as it stands, things like
On 31 May 1998, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> > "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Kai> /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults/XCal.help
> Kai> /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults/XEarth
>
> Manoj> 4.7. Programs for the X Windows system [...]
>
> uhh, /etc/X11/Xresour
On Mon, 18 May 1998, Jules Bean wrote:
> --On Mon, May 18, 1998 8:25 pm +0200 "Remco Blaakmeer"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 May 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
> >
> >> Hundreds of packages use menu. The calls to menu are guar
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
> > message).
> >
> > Since menu was not configured, man-db, psmisc, bc, and dc could not
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, [iso-8859-1] Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
>
> > Let's forget the policy. And let's take an average Linux user, using the
> > standard command shell (me using bash =)). This user uses the tab key to
> > travel through the filesystem and
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
> > No, this script should not be a conffile. Any customisation, such as fax
> > ports, should be read from a configuration file somewhere under /etc. If a
> > script in /usr/bin requires customisation by the sysadmin, this is a bug
> > in the script.
>
> A
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
> OK, an example where it might make sense to have a non-configuration file,
> listed as a conffile:
>
> A package includes a script (under /usr/bin say) that is commonly
> customised by the local admin.
>
> Mgetty's faxrunqd used to be like this, bec
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > Approval will not normally be granted except for the use of capital
> > letters where there appear in an upstream package command name.
>
> Was this approved? Christian?
>
> I'm packaging Login.app, a
On 13 Mar 1998, Rob Browning wrote:
>
> Is there some good reason? I guess it depends on the interpretation
> of "postrm".
>
> It seemed to me like it might make sense to remove them in the postrm
> where you know that anything that might have referenced this directory
> is gone, and can't be e
t;why is this package essential?" manual some
time ago. I think this would be really useful for new developers. Are
there people working on this?
Remco
--
blaakmeer: 1:10pm up 1 day, 14 min, 8 users, load average: 1.28, 1.23, 1.27
--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Santiago Vila writes:
> > > On my installation, all such links are relative, so I suppose it's not
> > > a mistake from me, and it is probably a lintian bug, or is there
> > > really a reason of using absolute links there ?
> >
> > I'm afraid there is
On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 12:34 -0500 1998-03-03, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >I understood this when I did it, and expected to identify the released
> >version as 2.0.7rel for this very reason.
>
> I consider that *much* uglier than an epoch.
But if you want to avoid using an epoch
On 2 Mar 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Of course, a well written init.d file is a no-op when the
> package itself is removed, so it does no harm to retain the file to
> keep configuration values ...
>
> If, for some packages, that is not the case, bugs should be
> filed
On 25 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"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. This is not hard to do, and it would al
On 21 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think if a binary is in /usr/X11R6/bin, the man pages go
> into /usr/X11R6/man. If it is in /usr/games, the man pages go in
> /usr/man. The algorithm, which is the same one as the one used to
> generate the man path, is
>
>base
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Christian Schwarz wrote:
> >7.) [For source uploads only]
> >Close bug reports that are fixed with this package upload
> >(see below for details).
>
> I don't know if this has been considered yet:
>
> It is pretty easy
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 10:40:43AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 12:08:47AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > > Yes, I can only agree. But is bash actually completely POSIX-compliant
> > > (and n
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 12:08:47AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > Yes, I can only agree. But is bash actually completely POSIX-compliant
> > (and nothing more than that) when called as /bin/sh ?
>
> It would appear not:
>
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> I think that the shell should also run in "POSIX-mode" if it is invoked as
> sh - bash does this, I don't know about the others. I don't think it's very
> nice if we have to start doing things like "sh --posix ..." to get a POSIX
> shell.
Yes, I can
On 15 Jan 1998, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> Bash-2.0 `help exec' reads:
>
> exec: exec [-cl] [-a name] file [redirection ...]
> Exec FILE, replacing this shell with the specified program.
> If FILE is not specified, the redirections take effect in this
> shell. If the first argument
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
>
> [Sorry to be offtopic a bit]
>
> "Remco" == Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I also think the
> > link /bin/sh could be perfectly managed by the `alternatives'
> > system, with the
On 14 Jan 1998, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> If program foo expects the environment variable BAR=/var/lib/fubar, an
> easy way to make it comply to this policy is to rename foo to foo-real,
> and write a wrapper shell script
>
>#! /bin/sh
>BAR=/var/lib/fubar
>fo
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> [This mail is part of Debian Policy Weekly issue #5]
>
> Topic 13: New virtual packages
>
> STATE: APPROVAL
>
> The following virtual packages have been requested: `pascal-compiler' and
> `libc-dev'.
>
> Some packages like noweb need to depend
On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 1997 at 12:30:26AM +0100, Juan Cespedes wrote:
> >
> > Are you sure it's quicker to do `ls' first to know how that
> > changelog is named, and after `less', that to always do `zless'?
>
> You can use zless on non-compressed files, a
On Sat, 15 Nov 1997, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
> > Some of this information should probably end up in the Policy docs, but
> > I'll gladly leave that up to the folks on debian-policy.
> >
> > Any and all comments welcome,
>
> a sysadmin should always have the possibility to control this.
> beca
50 matches
Mail list logo
