Bug#562506: init scripts should not use set -e

If your experience is representative, then it's probably better to advocate not setting set -e in init scripts. What about maintainer scripts? -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` ht

Bug#562506: init scripts should not use set -e

emember that we're talking about symptoms. I am reminded of http://madduck.net/blog/2006.09.22:why-i-don-t-work-on-ubuntu/ -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://peopl

Bug#568313: Suggestion: forbid the use of dpkg-statoverride in postinst scripts, except for --list

also sprach martin f krafft [2010.02.04.1336 +1300]: > In short, I am in favour of forbidding use of dpkg-statoverride by > package maintainers, unless I missed something in the above. Further information from IRC: < madduck> sgran: feel free to slam me down on my latest reply to

Bug#568313: Suggestion: forbid the use of dpkg-statoverride in postinst scripts, except for --list

e maintainers, unless I missed something in the above. -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better

Bug#568313: Suggestion: forbid the use of dpkg-statoverride in postinst scripts, except for --list

ht to preserve permissions on files that already exist (i.e. on upgrades)? -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian -

Re: debian-policy is blocking multiarch

taking theory into practice. -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems

Bug#554194: ifupdown virtual package name and mass-filing (if accepted)

k we agree anyway. > Depends: (...), ifupdown (>= 0.6.8+nmu3) | network-config-tool, (...) > > because this is a matter of "we need at least this version of ifupdown > to work properly" rather than "we absolutely need ifupdown"; after all, > it's ifu

Bug#554194: ifupdown virtual package name and mass-filing (if accepted)

pdown. I'd say that's part of any Debian "network-config-tool" interface. -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck

Bug#485559: Location of tftpd folder

me :) > > There might be an easy way to handle the situation. The policy could be > worded as: > > * The /var/lib/tftpboot is the logical location for tftpd server root > directory. It can be a directory or symlink to a directory elsewhere. I don't consider /var/

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

addition against base-files 7-8 years ago, but I cannot find it. -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you ha

devref editor

I would volunteer to become a devref editor. I am already subscribed to debian-policy. -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org

Re: 30352 reserved UIDs

also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.02.09.2032 +0100]: > Why does the policy mark 30352 UIDs and GIDs as reserved? Manoj explains it: since debian policy applies to debian packages, as far as packages are concerned, they are reserved since policy does not apply

30352 reserved UIDs

r make use of these UIDs anyway? -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do tha