Bug#150456: coherency with mkfs and fsck filesystem package names

2002-06-19 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Robert" == Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Robert> It doesn't need to be enforced, of course. If it does not have enough technical merit to justify being enforced, it does not belong in policy. Perhaps the best practices guidelines would be a better home for this.

Bug#150456: coherency with mkfs and fsck filesystem package names

2002-06-19 Thread Robert Millan
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 01:53:06PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > > Ack. No, this not something that needs to be policy, as it has no affect > on the interoperation of the packages and programs on the system. The > names are probably the upstream names, and it's much better to match > that, so th

Bug#150456: coherency with mkfs and fsck filesystem package names

2002-06-19 Thread Steve Greenland
On 19-Jun-02, 05:21 (CDT), Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.5.6.1 > Severity: wishlist > > Taking a look at packages in Debian that contain > filesystem maintainance utilities (mkfs and fsck): > > e2fsprogs > reiserfsprogs > dosfstools > xfsprogs > j

Bug#150456: coherency with mkfs and fsck filesystem package names

2002-06-19 Thread Robert Millan
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.5.6.1 Severity: wishlist Taking a look at packages in Debian that contain filesystem maintainance utilities (mkfs and fsck): e2fsprogs reiserfsprogs dosfstools xfsprogs jfsutils I think it'd be a good thing if Policy suggested to use a commonly agreed naming sch