On 19-Oct-03, 13:03 (CDT), Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:50:41AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > But it's a historic injustice,
> >
> > Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
> > The Man is keeping me down!
>
On 19-Oct-03, 04:20 (CDT), Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it's a historic injustice,
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
The Man is keeping me down!
Up with perl, down with make!
Power to the people!
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill
assume that I can figure out whether or not I want to
install foo on my own.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
prevent
repeated stupid bugreports.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
ow,
> but since man is still the most widely known unix documentation interface,
> new users may be helped by these pointers.
Colin already volunteered to hack man to provide the pointers instead of
a simple 'manpage not found'.
Next!
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony
dea of standards compliance for it's own
sake. I understand the alleged benefits of ash (small, loads faster on a
slow/small memory machine). Why would I, Debian user, benefit from being
able to run pdksh as /bin/sh? (Remembering that standards compliance, in
and of itself, does not give me a se
n of the packages and programs on the system. The
names are probably the upstream names, and it's much better to match
that, so that when documents say "build jfsutils" then Debian users
can just translate to "apt-get install jfsutils".
Manoj, AJ: See? I don't think eve
of
other experienced developers disagreeing.
What is the purpose of Debian Policy? I always thought it was a way to
decide/document choices, when more than one choice was reasonable, and
when that choice affected other developers and our users. This subject
falls into that definition, in my opinio
7;s umpteen thousand packages rely on that
particular binary being in /bin).
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
--
To UNSUBS
On 16-Jun-02, 15:30 (CDT), Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 02:17:12PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
>
> > It's not superfluous: if it's up to the developer, then they can move a
> > binary from one to the other with no warni
are if that list is set at the current intersection of Essential
and /bin:/sbin, as one can always work around any particular missing
tool (or, if not, then we need to make sure that tool gets moved).
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable ope
ious intent, but something on the order of "Hey, I need a place to
put this extra perl script, hmmm, /usr/lib/perl5 looks good!"
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t there are classes of things
that should not be covered by -policy. I'm with you there. But you seem
to mixing the two issues, as if the use of RFC terminology implies an
attempt to take over dpkg development.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
ing.
I'm guessing from the rest of your paragraph that we're not disagreeing,
but it was not completely clear to me.
--
Steve Greenland
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 24-Dec-01, 07:14 (CST), Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please CC me on all replies as I am not subscribed to this list.
>
> In Debian Policy 3.5.6.0 section 10.2.1 it says:
>
> Packages other than base-passwd must not modify /etc/passwd,
> /etc/shadow, /etc/group or /etc/g
sentiment, although
not the proposal.
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
e-alternatives is called
> the right way.
While I share your pain, it's not a policy issue, but should go into the
Developers Guide when that gets redone.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
each would probably make different choices about what
particular options/features/chunks of the package they would choose.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 06-Sep-01, 03:28 (CDT), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I thought we just established that calling ldconfig during 'postinst
>> upgrade' is wrong. Therefore, "all packages simply doing a l
On 06-Sep-01, 06:59 (CDT), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> BTW, what is it with all the Steves in this thread? :)
Is your problem that there are so many of us, or that we seem to be
excessively dim? I personally blame insufficient caffiene...
Steve Greenland
(No offense
On 05-Sep-01, 16:52 (CDT), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vociferous Mole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So? Isn't it a bug? This isn't a case of a policy change creating a bug,
> > but of a existing bug being highlighted by the policy clarification.
>
> It doesn't break anything, so
On 31-Aug-01, 16:22 (CDT), Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's consider the following proposal:
>
> The GPL file in base-files should better be renamed to "GPL-2" and
> GPL should be a symlink pointing to it.
>
> [ The proposal is independent of whatever step may come afterwards
On 31-Aug-01, 10:43 (CDT), Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> > To make it happen you should file a wishlist bug against the package which
> > provides the GPL, asking it to provide it as a versioned file and symlink
> > /usr/share/common-licen
On 30-Aug-01, 03:12 (CDT), Ari Makela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't like the idea of licencing my software under a licence I
> cannot know because it doesn't even exist so I tend to use GPL version
> 2.
>
> So should I just ignore the error message or should there be file
> /usr/share/co
On 22-Aug-01, 12:30 (CDT), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find this assertion in tension with the one you make later that "the
> one line description should be targetted at people who _don't_ have any
> idea what the package is." Why would such people know what "HTTP"
> stands fo
in the "A package's short description should:" section,
right? Or include the word "except" between "specifications" and "in".
And "protocol" is misspelled.
Steve
[1] With the possible exception of the "should be less than 80
characters" clause.
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 27-Jun-01, 07:09 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Agreed. So should we close this bug report?
>
Yes, please.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 26-Jun-01, 23:02 (CDT), Rene Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Do we really mean "must" for FHS compatibility if we are advocating
> ignoring its directives for the sbin directories?
Will you *please* stop harping on this? A substantial percentage of us
think we *are* following the FHS w.r.t
severity 100631 normal
retitle 100631 [AMMENDMENT 28/06/2001] Restrict http access to /usr/share/doc
bye
This proposal has two seconds and no ammendments. Since it has generated
no controversy, I'm setting the discussion period of 10 days, which will
end on 8 July 2001.
Thanks,
Steve
--
On 23-Jun-01, 17:36 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 09:08:10AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 21-Jun-01, 17:33 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Scripts which use programs in a directory other tha
keep a sane path in the root account needs to
be running MacOS, not Linux. Please proceed from here.)
As a particular point, note that if they are not considered "standard",
most init.d scripts will have to be modified add them to the path, as
start-stop-daemon is in /sbin.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is a summary of the status and disposition of many of the old (>
1yr) debian-policy proposals. Only bugs marked as "fixed" were
considered; they were marked this way because they had been rejected
or hadn't had any action in several months ("stalled"). If you
disagree with my action, please c
This note is being sent as part of a project to clean out old (> 1yr)
debian-policy proposals. If you disagree with action below please
respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not to me, so that the discussion may
be carried out publically in debian-policy. Feel free to re-open the
bug while it's being discu
This note is being sent as part of a project to clean out old (> 1yr)
debian-policy proposals. If you disagree with action below please
respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not to me, so that the discussion may
be carried out publically in debian-policy. Feel free to re-open the
bug while it's being discu
This note is being sent as part of a project to clean out old (> 1yr)
debian-policy proposals. If you disagree with action below please
respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not to me, so that the discussion may
be carried out publically in debian-policy. Feel free to re-open the
bug while it's being discu
This note is being sent as part of a project to clean out old (> 1yr)
debian-policy proposals. If you disagree with action below please
respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not to me, so that the discussion may
be carried out publically in debian-policy. Feel free to re-open the
bug while it's being discu
This note is being sent as part of a project to clean out old (> 1yr)
debian-policy proposals. If you disagree with action below please
respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not to me, so that the discussion may
be carried out publically in debian-policy. Feel free to re-open the
bug while it's being discu
stalled software
was probably not a good idea.
I'm asking for seconds.
Steve Greenland
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ootnote to the first sentence listing
the D-P sections that conflicted...
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpr7wSSHnhHL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
"...however, in a single package, all the documents written in a
particular language should share the same encoding."
I won't claim that is clearly superior to your phrasing though, so pick
whichever works better for you.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ainer discretion" should be "the maintainer's
discretion".
One suggestion: I think that last phrase might be better expressed as
"...however, the documentation for any single package should use
only one encoding."
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
se configuration files cannot live in
> /usr/share/doc.
Configuration templates != examples. The former are covered by 11.7.3
(penultimate paragraph) , the latter by 13.7.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
rd in cron, I think, but again, there's a lot of programs that do this
kind of parsing.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
, right?)
Now, I agree that encouraging such behaviour might be a good idea (I don't
know enough about various encoding to argue one over the other...)
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
FS to". So yes, the standard is clear
to those people who are used to reading standards. Others tend to read
more into them than is there.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
ple will complain,
and most of those will fix them. Yes, there will be a very few stubborn
idiots left. Deal with it. Life is like that sometimes.
Sheesh.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
t with which your package complied when it
> + was last updated. The current version number is &version;.
>
>
>
I second this proposal.
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgp7401VEp8RX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
(and
explain why they are not "tasks". Something like appending "-group"
(e.g. emacs-group, roxen-group), so that one can do "apt-cache search
'-group'" to find all those meta packages.
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
a new version of
policy was released.
I'll wait a few days for one of the policy editors to say "Oops, that
was an accident"; if that's not the case, I need to propose an ammendent
that clarifies reality, so that Adrian doesn't get mislead again :-).
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
On 01-May-01, 12:19 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:45:42AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 30-Apr-01, 14:33 (CDT), Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > You could probably do without the
containing two tar.gz
members. See deb(5). (I suspect that support for signed debs implies
more members, but not a change to the basic format.)
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
On 24-Apr-01, 05:25 (CDT), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No, I'm suggesting that build-depends could simply have an unversioned
> > depends on debhelper. The buildds would then always[1] have the lat
is not available elsewhere.
As a side note, did anyone else notice that dpkg-dev 1.8.3.1 containes a
completely empty /usr/share/doc/dpkg-dev?
Steve
[1] Well, obviously I can tar it up and move it elsewhere...still
annoying.
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on ma
member an upgrade to
debhelper causing problems[3].
[3] Modulo actual bugs in debhelper, of course.
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
be
sufficient), but enough people disagree with me (include the debhelper
maintainer, IIRC) that the discussion is not worth pursuing again.
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
s. The vast majority of us seem to be
able to deal with that and cooperate in a responsible manner, improving
our packages as best we can. Policy should be a minimum, not a maximum.
More to the point, we can have "violate a MUST ==> RC Bug" (modulo
deliberate maintainer choice with "
C" route, but there are lots
> of people getting really confused by this whole thing, and I think
> that the RFC route is the far better known.
I, for one, like Julian's proposal.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
be a good
enough test for this purpose.
(Note that hardly any of the "vt100 compatible" terminal emulators are
actually capable of doing a true VT100 terminal, there's lots of obscure
(and rarely used) features, particularly weird keys.)
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
nt of the NMU -x.y convention (as I recall) was simply to
make sure that the NMU'r and the developer didn't accidentally re-use
the same revision number.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 27-Mar-01, 23:57 (CST), Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 09:35:36AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Encouraging I could agree with, particularly when the check could be
> > automated against the Packages file. But even an automated check against
> > the
On 27-Mar-01, 12:09 (CST), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:56:31AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > If OpenMotif is in the distribution, why do packages need to provide
> > a statically linked version? Why can't they go in cont
if is in the distribution, why do packages need to provide
a statically linked version? Why can't they go in contrib (DFSG) or
non-free (otherwise) with a dependency on OpenMotif, just like other
non-free library using software?
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
're making doesn't seem particularly
> drastic.
Encouraging I could agree with, particularly when the check could be
automated against the Packages file. But even an automated check against
the maintainer scripts is not feasible for most people, and a lot of
checks are not possible to automate.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
assumption is that a package being uploaded to both
dists hasn't changed in either dist anyway, so policy compliance won't
*decrease*.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
constraint before migration. Note, you cannot
> + upload directly to testing as you can with
> + stable and unstable. This distribution
> + is the base for the next planned release.
Did you mean "experimental" in the first part?
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
read one document and learn how all the dpkg
> tools work.
Agreed, but that document is *not* the policy document.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
entation you are packaging" in
> > the packaging-guide (if it's not there already, that is) as a remider would
> > be enough?
>
> Such a reminder would be useful. It's something a maintainer might
> not think of when writing a rules file.
That's a reas
r form: mirrors, cd producers, etc.) into thinking we've actually
validated against a given country's laws.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
his proposal, presuming the constrains ==> constraints typo fix.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpEOWBLJkWjW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
bmitted as a
> patch for the sysvinit package.
Aren't these both superceded by Henrique's invoke-rc.d (#76868)? (Hmmm,
don't see anything from Henrique since late November...)
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
could
perhaps help it along. And I don't see any real negative by having it
there.
Steve
[1] Of course, reading debian-legal shows that most writers prefer to
make up their own crappy licenses that don't do what they think they do
and usually make things undistributable. Sigh.
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
he ftp maintainers stuck having to apply
overrides, which will make good sense to most of us, but lead to cries
of censorship and cabal from those affected.
No, I don't have a better solution right now, just picking holes.
steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
out about insight or code-medic, they can install them.
In fact, a quality task-* package would include in _its_ documentation
a (brief) discussion of why each package was chosen, and a list of
alternatives.
steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
On 20-Nov-00, 11:32 (CST), Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Previously Steve Greenland wrote:
> > I, for one, would like this feature. I'm vastly confused about why it
> > would be a policy issue, though.
>
> because it means all debian/rules fil
used about why it
would be a policy issue, though.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
p
(yeah, the usage message is out of date, and needs to be fixed, but it's
certainly not the same as "start".)
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
for stuff to break.
Okay, I've had my say on this subject, I'll shut up. Really.
Steve
[1] On a current woody system:
speedy:~$ apt-cache pkgnames |grep lib |wc -l [2]
1758
speedy:~$ apt-cache pkgnames |wc -l
7649
1758/7649 ~= 0.23.
[2] Yes, I know that's not a perfect count
On 06-Nov-00, 13:35 (CST), Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 10:58:30AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >
> > 1. "Non-FHS ports". This seems to me a contradiction in terms. Marcus
> > has weighed in with "but HURD
tc.) anyway? So this doesn't help them all
that much.
3. "Third-party stuff". Don't care.
> Requiring developers to accept technically competent and reasonable
> patches to enable this is something I think should be required (e.g.
> if someone files a bug that correctly solv
as the FHS is to avoid
this kind of kludgery.
And yes, I maintain packages where there would be a lot more effort to
follow this proposal than just sourcing the file and changing a few
configure commands.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
it too". Consider my
mild objection/concern withdrawn for now.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
ven if foo is not configured at the
current run-level (it's not clear to me that it does or doesn't, but I
only did quick skim of the descriptions), and packages strongly urged to
use it in the postinst, that would be a better solution.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
purpose, as there is no way
for the user to select them. Virtual packages exist so that other
packages can depend on the presence of a specific function w/o depending
on a specific package.
If you want to provide such a function for the user ("show me all the
web browsers"), imple
On 09-Oct-00, 13:57 (CDT), Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 12:13:47PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >
> > preferred: The Debian preferred implementation of a common service that
> > has multiple implementations (e.g. webservers, SMTP, mp3 players, etc.)
&g
t; postscript-preview Any preprocessor that creates Postscript output
> postscript-viewer Anything that can display Postscript files
Of what possible use are the "-preview" virtual packages? What would
depend on "any prepreprocessor that creates {PDF,PS} output"?
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tional" is just too dang
big, and we could just pick one, admit that it's arbitrary, and go on.)
Someone (IanJ?) had a more detailed proposal for this a while ago, I'll
see if I can dig it out.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
s package updating, because it's the only
> thing that writes into those files. And it won't, because dpkg run as root,
> and root can now write to a file he doesn't own without any problem.
Aaah, yes, proof by assertion. I'm with Manoj on this one.
Steve
--
Steve
developers *don't* have the policy package
> Chris> installed.
>
> Hmm. Don't we all have task-debian-dev installed?
I suspect a good many of us don't have *any* task-* packages installed,
esp. if our initial install predates the task packages. Once one has a
ni
te. I *understand* that the
list is not the "official definition". Feel free to post the official
definition, and the say "the current list x, y, and z. But stop making
people spend 15 minutes hunting for information that should be listed
everywhere that that "build-depends"
On 23-Aug-00, 18:17 (CDT), Daniel Barclay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ... Current policy
> > requires that /usr/doc/ exist (possibly as a symlink to
> > /usr/share/doc/).
>
> Then why don't more
On 23-Aug-00, 16:26 (CDT), Franklin Belew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 02:59:39PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >
> > While I agree with the philosophy, this code snippet is wrong, as
> > it will add the "-s" iff DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
On 20-Aug-00, 15:24 (CDT), Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The nostrip check needs to be inside the debug check. Because of you are
> not compiling with debugging turned on, there's no reason to not strip the
> binaries. So (note, the blank should go first):
>
> ifneq "" "$(findstring de
On 22-Aug-00, 23:53 (CDT), Nicol?s Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What about the /usr/doc/foo
> > symlink -- is foo-doc going to take care of that? What if I later
> > install foo? Who gets to remove the link?
>
> I don't know, but this kludge is a secondary thing, and should not be
>
On 22-Aug-00, 23:12 (CDT), Daniel Barclay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some packages don't have a documentation directory at all.
Then they are in violation of the Debian policy. Current policy
requires that /usr/doc/ exist (possibly as a symlink to
/usr/share/doc/).
> Some others do but their f
On 22-Aug-00, 21:02 (CDT), Nicol?s Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Think this: Do the docs document the docs? /usr/share/doc/mutt documents
> mutt, but /usr/share/doc/mutt-doc... documents... what? mutt-doc? Is a
> nonsensical place for documentation, I think. It only has some sense from
On 22-Aug-00, 18:27 (CDT), Nicol?s Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. I subtly avoided those by specifying doc- rather than -doc :-)
> > FWIW, I think we ought to come to agreement about the proper behaviour:
> > right now I don't know *where* to look after installing foo-doc.
>
On 21-Aug-00, 15:56 (CDT), Nicol?s Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I expect that when I install a package named doc-, all if its
> > content is going to be in /usr/share/doc/doc-. The Debian standard,
> > whether spelled out in policy or not, supports such expectation.
>
> Tha
On 21-Aug-00, 14:10 (CDT), Nicol?s Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Except that a package named doc-rfc will already have files in
> > /usr/share/doc/doc-rfc (copyright and so forth), and so having others in
> > /usr/share/doc/rfc is a little weird and unexpected.
>
> For you. Not for
On 04-Jul-00, 18:05 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So are people happy with changing the wording of the last two lines to
> read:
>
>otherwise they must go in non-free.
>
FWIW, I'm happy with that.
steve greenland
On 02-Jul-00, 23:38 (CDT), "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Specifically, because the files are conffiles, they are not removed
> when the package is removed, and so the files stay around to continue
> to affect the behavior of emacs. This happened to me with the user-de
> and
1 - 100 of 218 matches
Mail list logo
