On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 03:37:41PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Not using debconf. That's all that sentence means as I read it: the
> > phrase is just there for emphasis.
>
> Oh, I get it. The sentence is trying to say, "you can prompt the user
> directly or through debconf". I wonder why it d
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:05:36PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:43:45PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Can you give me an example of "not by hand"?
> Not using debconf. That's all that sentence means as I read it: the
> phrase is just there for emphasis.
Oh, I get it.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:43:45PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 09:27:04PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > So, let me try one more time. When you say "what do you think it's
> > trying to say", what do you think you're trying to say?
>
> I'm trying to say that I think it's *
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 09:27:04PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> So, let me try one more time. When you say "what do you think it's
> trying to say", what do you think you're trying to say?
I'm trying to say that I think it's *too* ambiguous. Where do you
draw the line between what is "by hand" a
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:51:54AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> So, let me try one more time. When policy says, "you can prompt by
> hand or with debconf", what do you think it's trying to say?...
So, let me try one more time. When you say "what do you think it's
trying to say", what do you think
I'd also like to apologize for making a mountain out of a molehill,
and worst of all, exaggerating-for-effect, which I *know* is always
easy to misinterpret. I would like to assure *anyone* who thought I
was taking pot-shots at Manoj that nothing was further from my mind.
As for the underlying i
Hi Folks,
I owe you all an apology for my outburst in the last email. I
also owe a specific apology to Chris Waters, for injecting ad
hominem attacks in an otherwise sane discussion.
manoj
--
Give me the avowed, the erect, the manly foe, Bold I can meet --
perhaps may turn his
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:51:54 -0800,
>> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> by hand
>>
>> 1. Said of an operation (especially a repetitive, trivial,
>> and/or tedious one) that ought to be performed automatically by
>> the computer, but which a hacker instead has to step tediously
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 01:14:55PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:02:20 -0800,
> >> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Why don't you tell me what it *does* mean (or what you think it's
> > supposed to mean), and I'll see if I can come up with some decent
> >
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:02:20 -0800,
>> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:55:52AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Firstly, this is not broad enough, saying that communicating to
>> the user by hand encompoassed all possible means of communicating,
> No,
(Wish I'd seen this before I replied to the last message; I could have
written a more succinct, all-in-one response. Oh well.)
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:47:54AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This is not an adequate replacement for "by hand". What if I
> pop up an dialog box on detecti
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:55:52AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Firstly, this is not broad enough, saying that communicating
> to the user by hand encompoassed all possible means of communicating,
No, it's simply technically meaningless. To me, "by hand" implies,
"without the use of a
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 02:06:20 -0800,
>> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 05:12:12PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Chris Waters wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:06:05PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> --- policy.sgml~ 2003
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:54:49 +0100,
>> Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
heading> Prompting in maintainer scripts
p>
>Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if
> - necessary. Prompting may be accomplished by hand, or by
> - communicating with a program, such as
>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:06:20AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 05:12:12PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Chris Waters wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:06:05PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> ...
>
> --- policy.sgml~ 2003-03-13 02:0
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:43:42AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Oh, please. You're saying that the only *possible* interpretation of
> > "by hand" is "by running a program named hand?" That's silly.
> > (Especially since there is no such program
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:43:42AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Chris Waters wrote:
> Keep in mind that policy is intended to help us make a better system,
> not to allow the filing of whimsical bug reports.
>
Not an intention
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 05:12:12PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Chris Waters wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:06:05PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > My intelligence tells me that if "by hand" is not replaced then
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 05:12:12PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Chris Waters wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:06:05PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > > The grammar is ambiguous
> > Common sense makes the resolution of this purported ambiguity pretty
> > clear.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> Since I'm reading debian-policy
> anyway, I figured the document couldn't hurt having a little polish put on
> it. I'm enjoying reading the document and checking it's semantics.
But not its punctuation, I hope.
> I believe that the best solution
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:06:05PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
>
> > 2.3.9.1 Prompting in maintainer scripts says:
> > "Prompting may be accomplished by hand, or by communicating with a
> > program, such as debconf, which c
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:06:05PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> 2.3.9.1 Prompting in maintainer scripts says:
> "Prompting may be accomplished by hand, or by communicating with a
> program, such as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration
> management spec
Package: debian-policy
2.3.9.1 Prompting in maintainer scripts says:
"Prompting may be accomplished by hand, or by communicating with a
program, such as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration
management specification, version 2 or higher."
The grammar is ambiguous and "by hand" is va
23 matches
Mail list logo
