On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:26:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Remember, the policy mailing list members are not DPL
> delegates, and have never been delegates.
Even if we were, it would still be wrong to exercise the power to do massive
changes without massive consensus.
(The whole d
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 11:10:17 +0200, Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> So from now on, we'll only change Policy after all packages comply
>>> with the proposed changes?
>> Yes. This is how policy has always worked; too.
> Maybe in most cases, but I think not in
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:10:17AM +0200, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Yes, these examples are long in the past, but I also think that the FHS
> transition over 4 years ago has been the last major Policy change that
> affected more than just a few packages.
Sorry, I lost you there. Is that to make us b
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So from now on, we'll only change Policy after all packages comply
with the proposed changes?
Yes. This is how policy has always worked; too.
Maybe in most cases, but I think not in all cases. Counter examples are
the move from FSSTND to FHS in Policy 3.0.0 (
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 00:58:32 +0200, Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [Directly answering to -policy, this does not need to be archived in
> the BTS.]
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> Tested patches against all init-script using packages to the BTS.
> So from now on, we'll only c
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:58:50AM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> --- debian-policy-3.6.1.0.orig/policy.sgml2003-08-19 14:32:23.0
> +0200
> +++ debian-policy-3.6.1.0/policy.sgml 2003-09-01 10:52:12.0 +0200
> @@ -5362,13 +5362,16 @@
> force-reload
> cause
[Directly answering to -policy, this does not need to be archived in the
BTS.]
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Tested patches against all init-script using packages to the BTS.
So from now on, we'll only change Policy after all packages comply with
the proposed changes? We'll never make
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >You can't make it mandatory before you implement it.
>
> I'll implement "status" for the init script and the changes to the
> maintainer scripts in my packages with the next upload. What else should
> I implement?
Tested patch
Andrew Suffield wrote:
You can't make it mandatory before you implement it.
I'll implement "status" for the init script and the changes to the
maintainer scripts in my packages with the next upload. What else should
I implement?
Stefan
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:58:50AM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> + In the case of init script commands other than status
> (i.e.,
> + start, stop, restart, reload,
> and
> + force-reload), the init script should return an exit status
> + of zero if the action desc
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 05:11:37PM +0200, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:58:50AM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
>
> > Attached an updated proposal, without exit code 5 clause.
>
> I second this updated proposal.
>
> I think status should be mandatory so it could be used by mainta
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:58:50AM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> Attached an updated proposal, without exit code 5 clause.
I second this updated proposal.
I think status should be mandatory so it could be used by maintainer scripts
on package upgrades. This way, a service would not be started i
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:48:58PM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> > > + Otherwise, the init script should print an error message and return
> > > + one of the following non-zero exit status codes.
> >
> > Rationale for the whole elaborate list,
>
> Following closely the wording of the LSB, as
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:58:50AM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> --- debian-policy-3.6.1.0.orig/policy.sgml2003-08-19 14:32:23.0
> +0200
> +++ debian-policy-3.6.1.0/policy.sgml 2003-09-01 10:52:12.0 +0200
> + status
> + print the current status of the servi
14 matches
Mail list logo
