On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 04:44:23PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 09:18:18AM +1030, Ron wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jakub, Russ,
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 04:55:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Jakub Wilk writes:
> > >
>
ones that don't on a case by case basis). Except the latter means that
we *can* override it with a standard well-known option, which wouldn't
be true if this was instead delegated to the upstream build system to
make the 'smart' part of the decision.
Best,
Ron
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120324224818.go12...@audi.shelbyville.oz
pport this if we can have some coherent
direction about it.
thanks,
Ron
> reopen 165848
> severity 165848 wishlist
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 06:03:13AM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>* PATH is evil :-) The upstream packages do not install like this by
> default, so
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 03:19:54PM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If -policy wants to run a flame war
>
> Hey, who ever wants a flame war?
:-) Well, I don't usually follow -policy (the list not the document)
unless something com
bts report off the cc, and probably
also the OP (who I can't speak for) and myself (who I just have ;).
As I've said before, I'll be incorporating the findings of the OP
re portablility into the next package and uploading it arch: any.
thanks,
Ron
ne though, I'm delighted to now hear this package will
build on other arch's too, that there is support for including it there
from other developers, that there are users to make that worthwhile,
and that simply making it arch-any will not cause any other problems.
I'll change the
ion unless
> anyone has any objections.
In the absence of any reasoned explanation for why this should not happen,
it (still) has my support too.
best,
Ron
tool.. (yes I know this greatly
lacks the polish of some other solutions offered, but there seems to be some
division still over the desirability of us creating such a symlink farm
by default.. ??)
best,
Ron.
7;t think Richard intended that anything special should be done by
Debian with regard to this ;-)
best,
Ron.
d that this might cause
problems with dpkg..
Could someone please elaborate on what sort of problems they see
this may be likely to cause? If I can reasonably make this switch
before I have files in both doc locations then I'll certainly be
able to breathe easier whatever else happens ;-)
thanks,
Ron.
> Who reminds the volunteer that the man page needs to be updated each
> time the primary documentation is updated?
er.. whoever files the bug report that says the man page is out of date??
ware of the bug?
This sounds fair to me.
..If we do have a team of avid man page authors lurking out there,
perhaps it would be useful if we could compile a list of those missing
manpages, perhaps post it with the wnpp or similar.
(don't we already do something similar for things needing translation..)
best,
Ron.
> At present, Debian Policy is covered by the GPL. I do not understand
> why this is so, and recommend that we change it to something similar
> to what the GPL does:
>
> Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA
>
old config files
after an upgrade, which is probably not the intended behavior.)
minor semantics, yeah.. but only config files that are to be deleted then
recreated, or renamed, (most of them ;) fall victim to this..
if only the _contents_ are changed then the link should be ok..
I can be happy with either of these two explanations.. saying *will*
just seems a little over-general though 8)
best,
Ron.
er "What technical problems?"
questions (like earlier in this thread ;-)
Either omit it entirely, or better, briefly describe how hard links
will not automatically point to new config files installed by the package
manager, but remain linked to the inodes of the old config files, even
if their 'other' filename is deleted..
(I'm sure someone can describe this for policy better than I just did ;-)
best,
Ron.
15 matches
Mail list logo
