> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Mays) writes:
>
> > I've learned that too. They also don't read the documentation in
> > /usr/share/doc/.
"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added:
> And really, how could they? My *laptop* has 884 packages installed.
> If I try "wc /usr/share/doc/*/README.Deb
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Mays) writes:
> I've learned that too. They also don't read the documentation in
> /usr/share/doc/.
And really, how could they? My *laptop* has 884 packages installed.
If I try "wc /usr/share/doc/*/README.Debian", that alone is:
4449 24692 168612 total
To expect
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course you realize that users do not, in general, read the extended
> descriptions of packages.
>
> This isn't your fault, just a bitter lesson I've learned over the past
> few years.
I've learned that too. They also don't read the documentation i
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 12:08:35PM -0500, Brian Mays wrote:
> Of course, good documentation is probably the best way to handle all
> of this. Adding a note in the description that xlibs is needed to run
> cardinfo is probably the most useful thing that can be done for the
> user.
Of course you re
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd be perfectly happy with a package that wanted some shared library
> only recommending or suggesting that shared library, provided that a
> wrapper script was included for the programs that did not function
> without the shared library to provide a usefu
> "Brian" == Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> My argument is as follows:
Brian> Programs fail to run for all sorts of reasons and often do
Brian> not give friendly error messages, help text, etc. Problems
Brian> are not only caused by missing libraries, but also
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 09:09:28PM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
> > 1) Ensure that no program is installed in a state in which it can fail
> > due to missing components, whether they are shared libraries required
> > by the program, missing data, or other programs that are used by the
> > scripts o
I prefer the 2nd position in the following issue.
(BTW, I don't subscribe to debian-policy list currently,
Just read this via newsgroup linux.debian.policy.)
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:10:11 +0100,
on Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am requesting a ruling from the Technical Committee on the meaning
> of "dependency" as used in the Policy Manual.
I second this request.
> My position is that shared library dependencies as determined by
> dpkg-shlibdeps must always be delcared in
severity 119517 serious
reassign 119517 tech-ctte,pcmcia-cs
thanks
I am requesting a ruling from the Technical Committee on the meaning of
"dependency" as used in the Policy Manual.
My position is that shared library dependencies as determined by
dpkg-shlibdeps must always be delcared in a packag
10 matches
Mail list logo
