Le Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 02:17:44PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho écrivait:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 12:29:29AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > why don't we follow the Perl team's lead
>
> I most definitely agree with your plan.
I also agree that there's no perfect solution and that we should ju
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 02:05:31PM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> Beutiful... so we're already implementing this.
Current policy specifies /usr/share/doc .
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
"... memory leaks are quite acceptable in many applicatio
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 02:18:31PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 01:31:09AM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> > Con: There will be a period where some packages use usr/doc and some
> > usr/share/doc, confusing users.
> > Reply: It's called unstable for a
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 01:31:09AM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> Con: There will be a period where some packages use usr/doc and some
> usr/share/doc, confusing users.
> Reply: It's called unstable for a reason.
... and that period is already here.
> Con: All packages will have
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 12:29:29AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> why don't we follow the Perl team's lead
I most definitely agree with your plan.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
"... memory leaks are quite acceptable in many applications ..."
> Joeyh has *NOT* modified debhelper. This is a conscious decision,
> not slacking.
> He states that he will change it when policy has decided what the right thing
> is. Until then debhelper stands as is.
I know, I've been following the debate. What I am proposing is that
Joey should modify deb
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 00:29:29 +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On the /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc issue
AOL!
> I think that with a change as large as this, people must expect
> inconsistencies if they perform partial upgrades/downgrades.
We avoid these inconsistencies where reasonably possib
James Mastros wrote:
> Con: All packages will have to depend on a base-files with a
> usr/share/doc/ directory.
> Reply: Is there one that dosn't?
What are you talking about? The post that started this thread said absolutly
nothing about dependancies on base-files.
--
see shy jo
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 04:57:35PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > Joeyh has *NOT* modified debhelper. This is a conscious decision, not
> > slacking.
> > He states that he will change it when policy has decided what the right
> > thing
> > is. Until then debhelper stand
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> Joeyh has *NOT* modified debhelper. This is a conscious decision, not
> slacking.
> He states that he will change it when policy has decided what the right thing
> is. Until then debhelper stands as is.
Sean knows exactly where I stand on this issue. I just want to a
Joeyh has *NOT* modified debhelper. This is a conscious decision, not slacking.
He states that he will change it when policy has decided what the right thing
is. Until then debhelper stands as is.
On the /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc issue
Given that:
- we're going in circles at present
- dpkg is unlikely to be fixed in the near future, and relying on the
user having a working dpkg is a dangerous assumption
- most packages use either debhelper or debstd
why don't we follow the Per
12 matches
Mail list logo
