* Karl M. Hegbloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010512 20:24]:
> Is this always true?
>
> 7.5.1 Overwriting files in other packages
>
> Firstly, as mentioned before, it is usually an error for a package to
> contain files which are on the system in another package, though
> currently the --force-over
* Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010512 20:19]:
> Your point being? As it is, you're allowing all editors to be removed
> without dpkg bitching about it and suddenly all these programs calling
> editor will start failing.
And any user that comes complaining to policy because dpkg allowed him
or h
* Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010507 15:44]:
> Most init.d scripts are expected to support all of start, stop,
> etc. options. But there are a small number of scripts which are
> obvious exceptions to this rule: restart, reboot, single, mountall.sh
> and so on.
Julian, I'm inclined to thin
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010507 13:53]:
> field; and using the standards version field as a reason ti file bugs
> is just plain wrong.
Is this working under the assumption that the release manager will drop
all packages "not recent enough" when freezing?
--
Earthlink: The #1 pro
* Sam TH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010507 00:11]:
> I've never seen AbiWord work over remote X if the fonts weren't
> installed in *both* locations. Thus, AbiWord installs on a machine
> without the fonts are *not useful* *at all*.
Sam, please don't take offense at this: the way I see it, if
cannot
* Anthony Towns [010506 00:05]:
> Seconded, with the proviso that I reserve the right to later be
> disagreeable about some of the "musts"...
AJ, I don't think anyone would ever expect you to give up being
disagreeable about "must"s. :) Actually, we might be rather
disappointed or disillusioned.
Greetings; I am pleased that Josip's proposal has received several
seconds. (Though I don't think many were signed -- I am fairly certain
that they do need to be signed to count!)
Since my goal is to get this thing taken care of as easily as possible,
I am retracting both my policy proposals so th
* Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010426 14:54]:
> Our inability to get this into Policy is appaling, isn't it? :<
Especially since both you and Wichert have put effort into this -- that
is two possible seconds for a proposal. I've taken a closer look at the
policy-process text and I do not think
* Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010426 11:18]:
> Previously Daniel Kobras wrote:
> > For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring up
> > discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the
> > future in order to properly solve this issue.
>
* Anthony Towns [010416 05:54]:
> > Does that possibility satisfy everyone:
> > - MUST and SHOULD change to the universally-recognised IETF meanings
>
> It's still not clear why this would be a Good Thing.
>
> The only real reason I've seen is that it's confusing people (and then,
> it's not app
[I've gotten to the point of not knowing who said what.. so all
attributions are cut.]
> > > Or better, it requires that the delivery agent runs under uid of the user
> > > that owns the mailbox.
> >
> > But then the delivery agent has to start off running as root to fire
> > off an MDA with the u
* Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010412 22:47]:
> I'd frankly prefer some sort of strong typing mechanism on the filesystem
> (like in MacOS), but that wouldn't be altogether helpful here. Just a thought
> I had when I read this...
Why don't you compile a list of the worst features of all
* Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010412 17:03]:
> My suggestion is: change "should" to "must" in policy, and give
> packages some time to migrate (eg., one year) before starting to do
> NMUs. Then any packages uploaded within the coming year will have to
> satisfy this requirement (or have a l
Frank, I understand Debian Policy's purpose is to document what Debian
considers good practice, not document the tools that may be used. Thus,
I think it is perfectly acceptable for Debian Policy to defer to the
update-menu documentation for the proper format of the menu files.
If this bug is sugg
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010402 01:32]:
> On 20010402T030737-0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > So, what is the provenance of this CURDIR variable? Has it
> > been blessed by POSIX? indeed not.
>
> I believe this is irrelevant, as portable make is next to useless.
I'll ad
* Anthony Towns [010325 02:30]:
> If you're not going to bother filing the RC bugs, there's no reason
> not to leave it as a "should". If you are going to file the RC bugs,
> then someone's got to figure out which packages it applies to at some
> point anyway.
This makes sense if one assumes that
* Anthony Towns [010325 01:11]:
> BTW, I'm inclined to think it'd be a good idea for people who want to add
> a "must" requirement (or to change a should to a must) to include a list of
> packages that would need to be removed from the distribution due to the
> change. Anyone agree/disagree?
Whil
* Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010305 22:20]:
> I would suggest that it would be better use of the maintainers time
> fixing problems.
It shouldn't be that tough; note whatever the --prefix etc options are
to the configure script if it has one, and make a note of this in
README.Debian. For those
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010220 13:52]:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > So, perhaps we should drop the bar a little. If your package is not at
> > least
> > 3.x.x, it gets held.
> And just out of curiosity: apt has standards version 2.4.1
That is interesting. Of
* Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010220 10:39]:
> Anyone have comments on the idea that the only packages we should release are
> ones that have a maintainer, not Debian QA?
In taking a quick list at the packages my machine knows about, it sure
appears that Debian could still be useful i
* Arthur Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010220 09:35]:
> So what about:
>
>cron.* scripts should not produce any non-error output in
>general. An exception may be made if the intention of the
>script is to mail a status report to the administrator.
I like this, though the "should not use
* Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010220 07:29]:
> Good. How about something like "cron.* scripts should not produce any
> non-error output in general. An exception may be made if the
> intention of the script is to mail a status report to root."
Why specifically root? I could imagine situati
* Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010218 05:00]:
> Why suddenly change the model like this? Would the following not be
> better and perhaps less confusing, still using a four-tier setup:
>
> stable frozen testing unstable
>
> Initially, frozen is set to be the same as testing, and we ca
* Anthony Towns [010216 19:43]:
> The easiest solution that I can think of (ie, that doesn't cause difficult
> to detect breakage, and that doesn't involve further significant changes
> or too much awkwardness) is, during the freeze, to just upload major
> changes to experimental, and bugfix updat
D, while I don't want to reject the idea out of hand (noting that my
only affiliation with Debian is enjoying it on my own computers, and
spending far too much time helping people on the mail lists) I don't
see any reason for changing our current system.
Perhaps if you would point out the faults o
IIRC, woody is the last name from toy story that we haven't used yet.
Does the Cabal know which movie (if any) is next? How about Chicken Run,
or the Wallace and Gromit series? Or MST3K? (Just consider, ``Manos,
Operating System of Fate!'' as a login banner. :)
(BTW, to join the Cabal, do I actual
* Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010205 02:39]:
> I disagree. Why should dpkg, for instance, which is specific to Debian
> come with a diff format.
Ah, but dpkg isn't specific to Debian. It is licensed in such a fashion
that allows its use in other projects.
(Of course, anyone likely to use dpkg
* Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010204 00:03]:
> Yes, but my point is that if the Debian maintainer were doing his job
> properly, then at least you wouldn't have to bother about tracking the
> Debian BTS since all the relevant reports should have been forwarded to
> you.
Hmm. While I certainly
* Arthur Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010128 03:48]:
> Shure the US is getting preferential treatment. Would you ever
> bother to set up master in, say, Iran and have to maintain a
> second master even though everything could be put onto the
> second master in the first place?
I would guess a large p
* Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010126 15:32]:
> Please give me a real life example of why distinguishing libraries
> solely by their major version number is not good enough...
How does this work with the glibc mess I seem to recall from about a
month ago?
--
``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So a
* Jim Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001215 07:04]:
> Perhaps one reason it's not a common license, is it's unknown whether
> the license is dfsg-free. I certainly don't know; there may be others
> like me:)
Does any of this really matter?
I'm all for adding any old blasted license to the common-lice
* John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001207 18:14]:
> > distributions is the right one. Uncle Debian in his wisdom makes the
> > choice for him and takes care of the details.
> Fuck Uncle Debian and the horse he rode in on if that's the case.
Now John, I consider myself fairly competent; however, wit
* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001206 21:30]:
> Task packages are packages whose names are prefixed with `task-'.
> Typically they are empty metapackages that merely depend on a collection
> of other packages.
Joey, nice work; I agree with the general gist of what you are aiming
for. When
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 20:37]:
> Fortunately, things aren't very severe right now. And, certainly,
> I think that if we could pull a solution together by the time that
> Woody freezes, that would indicate good faith.
It might not hurt to wait for RMS to get back to us wrt what
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 19:05]:
> Oh, I agree it's not likely. But surely there are Theo wannabies
> (horror) who do have the time.
I'm still in training.
>:->
--
``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all
really impressed down here, I can tel
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 18:49]:
> For all I know, you're Theo de Raadt, and you're deliberately trying
> to drive a wedge between the FSF and Debian out of hatred for
> everything GPL and everything that is not OpenBSD.
Naw, if you think Theo has that kind of time (or
* Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001201 22:07]:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:50:03PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > Make the GPL show up in ftp motd and perhaps even the web server
> > (headers?)
>
> I sincerely hope you aren't implying that the _complete_ copy of
Ok. I have discussed this a bit with my roommate, and we have a
suggestion:
Make the GPL show up in ftp motd and perhaps even the web server
(headers?) and mention that many packages, as indicated, are covered
under the GPL. We also mention that redistribution of the packages
requires giving the G
* Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001130 19:41]:
> If we're going to be so anal about interpreting the GPL, then why
> doesn't anyone mention the requirements for distributing the source.
Actually... we have agreed to one of: accompany the programs with
complete source, the three-year offer, or ``
* Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001129 21:27]:
> What I would most like to see myself is adding a /etc/licensing/
> directory in which every license used on the system can esist, for
> example:
>
> /etc/licensing/
> \-- GPL
> \-- BSD
> \-- Other
$ cd /usr/share/co
* Reimer, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001129 17:03]:
> The "easy" answer to that is that the version should automatically get
> bumped for user builds much like the kernel compile # is for Linux. The
> maintainers, when generating an "official" version, can specify the exact
> version when they comp
* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001129 16:17]:
> [...] sign a concacentation of their md5sums? [...]
> I don't understand how signing a uuid that is just listed in the control
> file and could be modified by anyone is cryptographically secure.
I would like to suggest that whatever signature schem
* Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001119 15:08]:
> So dou u want to make the task-secure-system package conflict with
> telnet-server? Since we also have secure telnet severs (telnetd-ssl). So the
> problem is we want to make sure that task-secure-system also removes
> insecure packages (at le
Greetings Daniele, [I have cc'd you, since I do not know if you are
subscribed to -policy]
* Daniele Cruciani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001110 06:37]:
> I think this is the right place for asking change on policy
> about doc-base registering of package.
Sadly, I'm not sure what you are proposing
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001029 18:54]:
> Maybe some upgrades should just be labelled "reboot recommended"?
It will be a sad day when this happens. :( I think it is a strong
selling point when I tell my MS friends, tired of rebooting after
installing a new web browser, that one can
* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001024 15:23]:
> Policy explictly says you should NOT output things to "stave off boredom
> on the part of a user". Displaying stuff for tasks that may be slow on
> my 386 clearly falls under that.
Hmm; I myself like twizzle sticks (ala fsck) to let one know the ma
* Anthony Towns [001009 21:10]:
> Well, which of emacs or vi should be the "preferred" editor?
This is missing the biggest question of all -- which of the various Vi
clones should be THE vi Debian suggests?
Vim, of course.
:)
Greetings all;
For today's apt-get upgrade, I had to answer the ``replace conffile''
question many times for the kde2 packages' .*desktop files. I don't
recall changing any of the .desktop files, so it would have been nice if
it just replaced them all on their own. However, I think a setup similar
* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000926 14:52]:
> Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > Your point is so obvious. duh... how did I miss that?
> > Of course that cracking bin would be like cracking root...!
>
> This is not an issue if
>
> a) bin has no passowrd so people cannot log in as bin
> and
> b)
49 matches
Mail list logo
