On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Brian Servis wrote:
> *- On 9 Jul, Philip Hands wrote about "Re: Debian conflicts with FHS on
> /usr/include/{linux,asm} "
> >> > Finding that you cannot rebuild a package, that built perfectly
> >> > yesterday, simply because you decided to have a look at the latest
> >> > k
', `deliver -r $g $u')
define(`LOCAL_MAILER_FLAGS', `DFMlmns')
Both the maintainer and I (as a concerned third party and maintainer of
deliver) don't think this is important enough to hold up hamm.
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Herbert Xu wrote:
> severity 23000 important
&g
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> > Previously Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > After installing the manpages package again, locate still did not find the
> > > man pages that actually did install. Does locate use a cache of some sort?
> > > Shou
On Tue, 12 May 1998, Jules Bean wrote:
> IMNSHO, there is a problem with the integration between our perl package,
> and the CPAN module.
Yes :)
Check out bug 15797 for discussion of this issue.
> If I have correctly analysed the problem, then the 'right' answer involves
> dpkg and CPAN somehow
On 12 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> James> Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> 4. A unique point of communication. In case of questions WRT a
> >> packages' `interface', it's much easier for other maintainers t
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Shaleh wrote:
> Count me 100% in favor. One question -- what about giflib where the
> copyright is obvious and will not change. Can this be noted rather than
> wasting our time e-mailing them?
I expect we can/should probably draft a standard disclaimer similar to:
--- snip
On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Well, if /bin/ps is not essential to the system, why it is in /bin?
Because it is very useful for diagnosing problems needed to mount a
possibly remote /usr volume. And that's the traditional location for ps.
But you don't need it to repair the packagi
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> Thank you both for the prompt reply. Indeed, the answers to my
> questions are in /usr/doc/emacsen-common/debian-emacs-policy.gz.
>
> Shouldn't the Policy Manual have a pointer to that file?
Probably :)
However, it was just hacked out recently, s
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> I could not find references in the Policy Manual about byte-compiling
> Elisp files (*.el) before inclusion in packages. Besides being smaller,
> byte-compiled files (*.elc) load a way faster in (X)Emacs.
>
> My apologies if this problem was disc
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Brian White wrote:
> > Umm, did you even read the FHS before posting this? /usr/share is
> > mandated by FHS
>
> I knew it's purpose, yes. The only thing that this mentions that I didn't
> know is the "is for all read-only architecture independent data files" part.
>
> I c
Umm, did you even read the FHS before posting this? /usr/share is
mandated by FHS
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.0/fhs-4.8.html
I'm not even going to bother to post about the rest of this other than to
say that there is a planned feature of dpkg&co to be able to exclude
certain directories from b
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> With the new lintian check I discovered that some packages install a `du'
> control file (contains the output of the du command).
>
> Does someone know which program is using these files??
>
> If there is no good reason for these files, should w
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Policy Manual 3.4.5 says:
>
>Do not include the /etc/rcn.d/* symbolic links in dpkg's conffiles
>list! This will cause problems! Do, however, include the /etc/init.d
>scripts in conffiles.
>
> However, it does not say why /etc/init.d/* scri
On 19 Dec 1997, James Troup wrote:
> Milan Zamazal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > I still fail to see any advantages in what even you admit is a
> > > half baked security solution. There is a better, more secure, real
> > > solution in terms of tripwire.
> >
> > But we have none -- tripwire
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> Who has authority to mess around with the bug report? From
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.html>, it looks like any
> developer who gets a mind to is "authorized". Is this something that's
> possible but not recommended?
>
> Possible answer
On 13 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
> Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Nice post, but very little in the way of rational arguments why bash
> > should be essential when it doesn't have to be.
>
> Cheap shot, not well made. The point is, bash is
On 13 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
[lots snipped]
> What on earth for? That's completely redundant if bash is essential.
Nice post, but very little in the way of rational arguments why bash
should be essential when it doesn't have to be. It's not like there is
significatly more power there than
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
> Package: gawk
> Version: 3.0.2-1
>
> All files (but `copyright') in /usr/doc/gawk are compressed.
> Since there are no big files, there is no reason to compress them all.
> Please, install them in uncompressed form.
I'm hauling this out onto deb
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 1997 at 09:03:14PM +0100, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
> > what about this :
> > the new to-be 2.1 distribution should be empty (not all these symlinkls
> > to the old hamm tree), and only real new packages with fhs should go
> > there.
>
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> Hi folks!
>
> There are currently two problems with the editor/pager policy:
>
> 1. Some packages start to use /usr/bin/{editor,pager} but no package
> (AFAIK) does provide this yet.
The latest versions of both more and less provide /usr/bin/pa
On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Very good idea. Maybe that should be the ONLY way bug reports could be
> closed? That way we have an insurance that bug reports are only closed
> by the maintainer.
Please tell me you're being sarcastic here. There are plenty of bugs that
aren't b
On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > Policy Manual 2.3.0.0, Section 4.3 Editors and pagers
> >
> The policy manual doesn't make it very clear as to why the "editor" has
> the responsibility, rather than the package that wishes to use it.
> For
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
> > /usr/bin/perl shall thus belong to an essential package.
>
> can you replace essential packages with non essential ones ?
> i'm not sure, at least removing essential is not possible without a
> force option.
Perl will suppliment perl-base, n
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Will Lowe wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
>
> > kde strcuture is nearly fhs draft compatible, but not fsstnd compatible :
> > /usr/share/doc and others. what should i do ? i don't know.
>
> Umm, as far as I can see, the fsttnd is only good if the p
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
> policy sais nothing. fsstnd and fhs draft are not exact.
> current decission of our policy manager is to place all x11 programs and
> their files in /usr/X11R6.
>
> my opinion : /usr/X11* exists for historic reasons. the x11 system (in
> our case
25 matches
Mail list logo
