> > Okay, then solve the problem of which one should actually work on the
> > standard port? You can't use update-alternatives if the software is
>
> Well, I would prefer that things didn't start listening for connections
> without asking first, but I can't imagine that that's a popular
suggestion
>These packages don't conflict; they merely provide the same
> service. There is no reason that these three packages cannot
> coexist on the same system. Any namespace overlap can be
> solved by alternatives or renaming, as such things are normally
> rectified.
>Debian policy should prosc
On 12 Apr 1999, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > "Enrique" == Enrique Zanardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Enrique> /dev/fd0 /floppy auto defaults,user,noauto 0 0
> Enrique> /dev/cdrom /cdrom iso9660 defaults,ro,user,noauto 0 0
>
> These look good. I assume that 'user' still obeys the p
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> /dev/fd0 /floppy auto defaults,user,noauto 0 0
> /dev/cdrom/cdromiso9660 defaults,ro,user,noauto 0 0
The defaults directive doesn't make too much sense when combined with
other directives, it should be removed from both those
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I would like to further clarify my stance on this issue.
>
> For what it's worth, I think I understand your stance and have for a while.
> I just disagree with it.
Me too
hare dramatically, many packages
are conforming with the usage as listed there. Since we are migrating to
FHS within the next few releases, it has mostly been decided not to make an
issue of this. You can find the FHS 2.0 at http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
--
Scott K. Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
d be done with it. The
version numbers are recognisable in the filenames, and dpkg knows which
comes first. I see that as a good thing.
--
Scott K. Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simple reason. libpng2 is version 1.0 of libpng, while libpng0g is
version 0.96. We should be encouraging people to link with the correct
library. libpng0 is depreciated.
--
Scott K. Ellis | Argue for your limitations and
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>|
On Sat, 21 Mar 1998, Philippe Troin wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 08:20:37 MST Galen Hazelwood ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > The standard C compiler for Debian is gcc, built from the 2.7.2.3
> > sources. The standard C++ compiler for Debian is in the g++ package,
> > which was built from egcs.
On 19 Mar 1998, Rob Browning wrote:
> The changelog for egcc claims it's now the standard for Debian. Is
> that true? I'm asking because I need it here for other projects, and
> I want to know how that can/should interact with building my Debian
> packges.
>
> Is it OK to compile Debian package
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >
> > > Well, let me put it to you another way...Why is it libc6's responsibility
> > > to work out a problem between g
he
slew of reports made without first consulting with debian-policy about
them. I'm sure that it needs to be discussed.
--
Scott K. Ellis|I don't explain myself.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | My friends understand
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 11:34:32PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> > To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream version,
> > the version number should be changed to the following format in
> > such cases: `96-05-01', `96-12-2
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Santiago Vila wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
>
> > > The policy does not explain why they should *all* be conffiles.
> >
> > I can think of a reason to modify almost any /etc/in
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Could somebody please explain the rationale for having *all*
> /etc/init.d/* scripts as conffiles?
Simple, if they are ALL conffiles, then the local sysadmin isn't
unpleasntly suprised when the specific file he edited turned out to NOT
be a conffile.
C
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
>
> > [...] stopping these files from being conffiles will
>
> No. This is the most common misunderstanding: I'm *not* saying they
> should *all* have to stop being conffiles. I
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 1997 at 01:56:35PM -0500, Scott Ellis wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> [snip policy]
> > >
> > > Could somebody please explain the rationale for having *all*
> > > /etc/init.d/* scripts as conffiles?
>
> [snip
On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> At the risk of starting another flamewar, providing a KDE
> package that installs in /opt is an obvious violation of debian
> policy, which I assume is why Andreas does his own. Although
> Andreas encourages us not to get the KDE people off-side,
> some
On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Alex Yukhimets wrote:
> My understanding was that -dev and -altdev packages are conflicting ones.
> Why not included all man pages and other documentation in both
> of these packages to avoid creating additional ones?
Because your understanding is incorrect. The -altdev pack
19 matches
Mail list logo
