On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 12:56:23PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > [ Note that I'm not particularly disappointed that someone objects this
> > proposal, I think we could well wait for FHS 2.1 to be official before
> > going any further ].
>
> FHS 2.1 in
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 12:56:23PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > There are reasons for us not to change: it is hard to do right, as the
> > discussion has shown, and if we get it wrong we risk making people's
> > mail systems fall over or even losing mail.
>
> IMHO, the discussion has not shown
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 08:18:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > To do this I suggest we ammend policy first by replacing all existing
> > instances of /var/spool/mail with /var/mail and then changing the second
> > paragraph of section 5.6 which currently reads
>
> I object to this proposed chang
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Ian Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > To do this I suggest we ammend policy first by replacing all existing
> > instances of /var/spool/mail with /var/mail and then changing the second
> > paragraph of section 5.6 which currently reads
>
> I objec
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> To do this I suggest we ammend policy first by replacing all existing
> instances of /var/spool/mail with /var/mail and then changing the second
> paragraph of section 5.6 which currently reads
I object to this proposed change on the following grounds:
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> [...]
> Must all packages work completely correctly even in unconfigured state?
This is a very good question, indeed.
I withdraw my suggestion to use Pre-Depends for this.
[ Still, we have to be very sure that *every* MTA is stopped in the postrm
befor
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 12:58:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> MUAs that are currently executing will continue to work (the mail isn't
> getting moved or anything), by the time the MTA is configured, it'll
^^^
> work, and MTA's being executed sometime
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 06:46:33PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > Why does /var/mail have to exist before those packages are unpacked?
> > > Others have explained that this is probably not necessary for MTA's.
> > > However, it still seems necessary for MUA's. On a multi-user system,
> > > an
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 03:40:50PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > What does dpkg do in the case of circular dependencies?
>
> It breaks the cycle (I'm not sure by which criteria) and configures the
> packages in the newly-defined order.
APT brea
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 01:10:35PM -0400, Johnie Ingram wrote:
> Ian> What does dpkg do in the case of circular dependencies?
>
> It dies a horrible, violent death
No it does not.
> -- see Bugs 22999, 23611, 23906,
> 24626, 24690, 24923, 26084, 29901, 34136, 34174, 34287, 38155, 38288,
> 38378,
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 03:40:50PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> What does dpkg do in the case of circular dependencies?
It breaks the cycle (I'm not sure by which criteria) and configures the
packages in the newly-defined order.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi
"Ian" == Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> What does dpkg do in the case of circular dependencies?
It dies a horrible, violent death -- see Bugs 22999, 23611, 23906,
24626, 24690, 24923, 26084, 29901, 34136, 34174, 34287, 38155, 38288,
38378, 38381, 38393, 38754, 39204, 39275, 41611,
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 12:16:51PM -0700, Carl R. Witty wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 08:32:57AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > > > I second this proposal, but please change the word "dependency"
> > > > > by "Pre-Dependency"
> > > Why does /var
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ruud de
Rooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>From the Packaging manual, section 8.2:
>
> Thus `Depends' allows package maintainers to impose an order in which
> packages should be configured.
>
> `dpkg' will not configure packages whose dependencies aren't
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 12:16:51PM -0700, Carl R. Witty wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 08:32:57AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > > I second this proposal, but please change the word "dependency"
> > > > by "Pre-Dependency"
> > Why does /var/mail have to exist before those packages are unpack
Anthony Towns writes:
> --ncSAzJYg3Aa9+CRW
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 08:32:57AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > I second this proposal, but please change the word "dependency"
> > > by "Pre-Dependency" (otherwise I would formally object ;-).
> > >
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 10:47:54AM +0200, Ruud de Rooij wrote:
> > If base-files' postinst will always be run before the postinst for a MTA
> > depending on it, then a pre-dep is not needed. It was my understanding
> > that dpkg could get confused this way and run things in the wrong order.
> > If
On 1999/08/04, Joseph Carter wrote:
> If base-files' postinst will always be run before the postinst for a MTA
> depending on it, then a pre-dep is not needed. It was my understanding
> that dpkg could get confused this way and run things in the wrong order.
> If we can be sure of this and it is
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 03:19:58AM -0500, Ruud de Rooij wrote:
> > MTA's are started immediately on configuration of the package.
> >
> > If you do not start the program in postinst (say a MUA) all you need is a
> > dependency. If the program gets started before that, it has to pre-depend
> > or
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 12:48:08AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> MTA's are started immediately on configuration of the package.
>
> If you do not start the program in postinst (say a MUA) all you need is a
> dependency. If the program gets started before that, it has to pre-depend
> or deal grac
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 09:33:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > I second this proposal, but please change the word "dependency"
> > > by "Pre-Dependency" (otherwise I would formally object ;-).
> > > Rationale: base-files (>=whatever) must be unpacked and *configured*
> > > before *any* packag
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 08:32:57AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > I second this proposal, but please change the word "dependency"
> > by "Pre-Dependency" (otherwise I would formally object ;-).
> > Rationale: base-files (>=whatever) must be unpacked and *configured*
> > before *any* package using
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 29.07.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Every package install files in /usr/doc/.
Well, every package *should* do that.
MfG Kai
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 02:39:37PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >While the FHS mandates the mail spool be accessable as /var/mail, it is
> >important to retain compatibility with older packages and locally
> >compiled programs. Packages using the mail spool should use /var/mail
> >
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> [...]
> To do this I suggest we ammend policy first by replacing all existing
> instances of /var/spool/mail with /var/mail and then changing the second
> paragraph of section 5.6 which currently reads
>
>The mail spool is /var/spool/mail and the in
Joseph Carter wrote:
> I propose that we create a safe migration path between /var/spool/mail and
> /var/mail.
Seconded. Thanks for an excellent migration path.
--
see shy jo
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 01:19:49AM -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> > I propose that we create a safe migration path between /var/spool/mail and
> > /var/mail.
> >
> > The base-files package should implement the following:
> > * If /var/mail does not exist but /var/spool/mail does (standard
> >
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I propose that we create a safe migration path between /var/spool/mail and
> /var/mail.
>
> The base-files package should implement the following:
> * If /var/mail does not exist but /var/spool/mail does (standard
> configuration today), a symlink
On 28 Jul 1999, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> > Joseph Carter writes:
> [...]
>
> JC> I propose that we create a safe migration path between
> JC> /var/spool/mail and /var/mail.
>
> I second this proposal.
>
> FWIW, I was hoping that an identical solution would be proposed for
> /usr/doc vs.
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 10:51:21AM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> [...]
>
> JC> I propose that we create a safe migration path between
> JC> /var/spool/mail and /var/mail.
>
> I second this proposal.
>
> FWIW, I was hoping that an identical solution would be proposed for
> /usr/doc vs. /usr
> Joseph Carter writes:
[...]
JC> I propose that we create a safe migration path between
JC> /var/spool/mail and /var/mail.
I second this proposal.
FWIW, I was hoping that an identical solution would be proposed for
/usr/doc vs. /usr/share/doc, but the catch is that several packages
have a
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.1
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 02:39:36PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> This way, people would be free to move /var/spool/mail/* to /var/mail/*
> >> at their discretion, but this is never done automatically by the system.
>
> Joseph> That was the point of t
32 matches
Mail list logo
