On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Followups to debian-policy, please]
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 11:22:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I think that some people are espousing non-compliance with the
> > standards. Is that what we want to do?
>
> The FHS exhaustively ex
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Here's an issue. About two years ago there was a proposal that the
> default httpd setup should not allow /usr/doc to be remotely
> accessible, as it's a huge security risk. (Yes, we're talking about a
> small amount of "security through obscurity" her
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Steve Robbins wrote:
> > The current policy document does not make explicit that packages ought
> > to aim to be "compatible" with FHS, rather than "compliant".
>
> We don't aim to be fully
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
Severity: normal
The current policy document does not make explicit that packages ought
to aim to be "compatible" with FHS, rather than "compliant".
Furthermore, the policy does not make explicit *which version* of FHS
one ought to follow. There is a pass
On 6 Mar 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Steve" == Steve Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Umm, we like to keep things informal around here. So that
> >> document kinda reflects the way things are done, without having the
> >
On 3 Mar 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Steve> Poking around in /usr/share/doc/debian-policy, for example, I
> Steve> see a "proposal" document. This document is written as a
> Steve> *proposal* to propose policy changes, so I was unsure of its
> Steve> status. It is over a year old, so I h
On 2 Mar 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> Steve Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > May I suggest that the policy document clearly state that the aim is
> > `compatibility'? For instance, by replacing the quoted sentence with
> > something like:
>
>
On 1 Mar 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> There's a difference between compliance and compatibility. At the
> moment, we are striving for compatibility. Compliance will be a later
> goal.
Ah. I can see now that the first sentence of section 3.1.1 is probably
trying to say `compatibility' using othe
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> Keep in mind though, Steve posted this not out of some higher moral
> purpose, but because some poor user's /usr/local was deleted by a script
> somewhere.
Yes and no.
It was the thread started by someone whose /usr/local got wiped out that
started me
On 29 Feb 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Steve" == Steve Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Steve> Hmm. This says that the *location* of directories must comply with
> FHS.
> Steve> Why doesn't this read simply "The Debian file
Hello,
I would like to propose that the Debian policy document be amended with
respect to handling of /usr/local. The relevant sections are 3.1.1 which
says that Debian ought to comply with FHS, and section 3.1.2 which says
that packages may create directories under /usr/local.
On the face of it
11 matches
Mail list logo
