On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 08:36:51PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 07:29:20PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Editor and sensible-editor
> > * Old.
> > * Proposed on 2 Jun 1999 by Goswin Brederlow.
> > * Instead of having programs use $EDITOR and fall back to editor,
> >
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 08:36:51PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 07:29:20PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Section 3.2 should not allow static user ids (except root=0) (#43483)
> > * Stalled.
> > * Proposed by Andreas Jellinghaus; seconded by Joseph Carter.
> > * Policy c
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 08:36:51PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > Echo -n (#48247)
> > * Under discussion.
> > * Proposed by Raul Miller; seconded by Joseph Carter.
> > * Amend policy to say /bin/sh must be a POSIX shell, but with the
> > addition that "echo -n" must not generate a newli
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 07:29:20PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Amend non-free definition (#46522)
> * Stalled.
> * Proposed by Raul Miller; seconded by Marco d'Itri, Joseph Carter
> and Joel Klecker.
> * Change definition of non-free to "contains packages which are not
> compliant with
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 07:29:20PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
> >
> > Do we have consensus on any of the listed amendments? Let me know..
>
> I don't understand why many of them are stalled; they have the requisit
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 07:29:20PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
>
> Do we have consensus on any of the listed amendments? Let me know..
I don't understand why many of them are stalled; they have the requisite
number of seconds and no listed ob
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 02:03:48PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
>
> > Data section (#38902)
> > * Consensus.
> > * Proposed on 3 Jun 1999 by Darren O. Benham; seconded by Peter S
> > Galbraith and Peter Makholm.
> > * "Since there is interest in packaging census data, maps, genome
> >
> Data section (#38902)
> * Consensus.
> * Proposed on 3 Jun 1999 by Darren O. Benham; seconded by Peter S
> Galbraith and Peter Makholm.
> * "Since there is interest in packaging census data, maps, genome
> data and other huge datasets I and since most people agreed that
> dropp
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
> Please let me know if you think any proposals have a consensus.
I think this one does:
> Add VISUAL when checking for user's editor (#41121)
> * Old.
> * Proposed by Steve Greenland; seconded
Hi,
>>"Franklin" == Franklin Belew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Franklin> If you do have a really good reason that people can't
Franklin> rebuild their packages in the next 2 months, I'd like to
Franklin> hear it.
Is there ar eason that all packages can not be done within a
week? No. D
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 11:04:29AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
>
>Amendments
>
> Delay the /usr/doc transition till after potato (#42477)
> * Stalled for 2 weeks.
> * Pro
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 11:04:29AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > * Proposes the addition of four new fields to debian/control to
> > specifiy different kinds of source dependancies (and conflicts,
> > suggests, etc).
>
> This amendment does *not* specify any
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 11:04:29AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> * Proposes the addition of four new fields to debian/control to
> specifiy different kinds of source dependancies (and conflicts,
> suggests, etc).
This amendment does *not* specify any build-time "suggests" relationships.
--
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 01:39:38PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Active proposals
>
> Section 3.2 should not allow static user ids (except root=0) (#43483)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed by Andreas Jellinghaus.
> * Policy curren
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
>Amendments
>
> FHS-compliant location of compiled examples (#42849)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed by Joey Hess; seconded by Julian Gilbey and Chris Waters.
> * This is a proposal
> + There are at least two different, yet functionally equivalent,
> + ways of handling these scripts. For the sake of simplicity,
> + this document describes only the symbolic link method.
> + However, it may not be assumed that this method is being used,
> +
> On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 03:46:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Correct section 3.3 to take account of file-rc (#41547)
> > * Proposed by Julian Gilbey; seconded by Roland Rosenfeld.
> > * Part of policy doesn't make sense if file-rc is being used. This
> > proposal is to clean it up so it
Hi,
>>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> Well, I haven't seen a patch to modify dinstall and I haven't
Jason> seen a patch to modify dselect+apt either - so there is
Jason> definately lots of work to still be done by someone.
You are right. What is out there
On 7 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think you misunderstand. "without any modification to any
> existing packages, and hence policy.". As I read it, that means that
> no packages need be modified, and thus this is not policy. And such is
> the case.
That's kinda what I thought
Hi,
>>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> The discussion in the bug report seems to have reached the conclusion
>> that this can be handled simply by modifications to dinstall and apt
>> (or other dselect methods as applicab
Hi,
>>"Jim" == Jim Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jim> If this is to be done by adding to how packages are made, it
Jim> definitely belongs in policy, because ALL packages would then have to
Jim> adhere to it. But if there is a way to offer disk usage information
Jim> about packages withou
>
> Date:Fri, 06 Aug 1999 19:18:32 MDT
> To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
> cc: Debian Policy List
> From:Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Bug#37999: du -S'ing the archive (was: Re: weekly policy summary)
>
> On S
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 10:39:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Method for shlibs to work with libfoo.so (#42236)
> > * Under discussion.
> > * Proposed by Joseph Carter.
> > * This is a proposal to make binary-only shared libs that have no
> > soname work with dpkh-shlibdeps. The idea
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 07:11:57PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > First, this is horrible and abhorrent, and unversioned libraries shouldn't
> > ever happen, and other packages shouldn't start depending on them and
> > icky icky icky icky ewww.
>
> Maybe I'm just being simple, but couldn't one
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The discussion in the bug report seems to have reached the conclusion
> that this can be handled simply by modifications to dinstall and apt
> (or other dselect methods as applicable): that is, to have dinstall
> generate a DiskUsage.gz file along with
Anthony Towns wrote:
> As such, perhaps this should be reassigned as a wishlist bug against
> ftp.debian.org and apt?
Perhaps, but it is not likely to be implemented unless someone supplies
patches.
Richard Braakman
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> First, this is horrible and abhorrent, and unversioned libraries shouldn't
> ever happen, and other packages shouldn't start depending on them and
> icky icky icky icky ewww.
Maybe I'm just being simple, but couldn't one simply modify the binary to
inc
> A pre-install required space checking mechanism for Debian packages
> (#37999)
> * Old.
> * Proposed on 19 May 1999 by Manoj Srivastava.
> * The idea is to enable tools like apt to check if a set of packages
> will fit on a disk, taking various partitions into account. This
> will r
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 03:46:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Method for shlibs to work with libfoo.so (#42236)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed by Joseph Carter.
> * This is a proposal to make binary-only shared libs that have no
> soname work with dpkh-shlibdeps. The idea is to detect
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 03:46:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Correct section 3.3 to take account of file-rc (#41547)
> * Proposed by Julian Gilbey; seconded by Roland Rosenfeld.
> * Part of policy doesn't make sense if file-rc is being used. This
> proposal is to clean it up so it does make
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 03:46:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Virtual package 'ispell-dictionary'
> * Proposed by Santiago Vila; seconded by Julian Gilbey.
> * add ispell-dictionary to the list of virtual packages for
> "Anything providing a dictionary suitable for ispell".
I second this pr
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 01:05:13AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Marcus> You're correct. The old prerm script is called before an
> Marcus> update. This makes my analysis wrong indeed. The prerm
> Marcus> scripts can go aft
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. I said that under the guidelines, there has been no
> provision to reopen proposals that were rejected under the same
> guidelines. People are not really constrained to follow the
> guidelines.
I don't see anything in the guidelines t
Hi,
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 01:05:13AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Marcus> Correct. I would like to see the proposal revived, with the
>> Wold it not have been better to talk first, and shoot
>> afterwards? At the moment, there is no provision
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 01:05:13AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Marcus> Correct. I would like to see the proposal revived, with the
> Wold it not have been better to talk first, and shoot
> afterwards? At the moment, there is no provision for reviving
> proposals that have been kille
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> You're correct. The old prerm script is called before an
Marcus> update. This makes my analysis wrong indeed. The prerm
Marcus> scripts can go after the transition. I apologize for giving
Marcus> this wrong information. Ho
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> > > 1. mv /usr/doc/* /usr/share/doc
>
> This isn't trivial, because you cannot be sure that /usr/doc and
> /usr/share/doc are located at the same filesystem.
> And don't miss the (few) packages which alr
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 10:57:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 06:08:33PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 01:50:39AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > So all new packages will have to depend on this particular version of
> > > > base-files or n
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 04:54:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> postinst install:
^^^
also at upgrade.
> if [ -d /usr/doc ]; then
> if [ ! -e /usr/doc/$package -a -d /usr/share/doc/$package ]; then
> ln -s /usr/share/doc/$package
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 06:08:33PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 01:50:39AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > So all new packages will have to depend on this particular version of
> > > base-files or newer, or there is still no guarantee that the link gets
> > > removed.
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 01:50:39AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So all new packages will have to depend on this particular version of
> > base-files or newer, or there is still no guarantee that the link gets
> > removed.
>
> Erm, no, they don't need to declare any such dependency -- the packag
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 12:40:39AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> * Stick with /usr/doc until potato is released, then begin a massive
> migration, which may or may not involve symlinks.
> - we can't pretend FHS compliance (but we couldn't anyway).
> - some people have already moved and m
Anthony Towns writes:
> Let me summarise the proposals so far as I see them: (in order of my
> personal preference)
> * symlinks managed by postinst/prerm
> - requires lots of packages to add postinsts/prerms for potato
>and woody, and then to get rid of them for woody+1
> - m
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 08:20:18PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > I'm tempted to object to any such proposal that doesn't have the support
> > of Ian Jackson or Klee Dienes or someone equally familiar with dpkg
> > internals.
> Then provide a better option. I'm beginning to agree with Manoj here.
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 01:07:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 07:55:13PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > read "mv" as "cp, verify success, rm old, create symlink, and the whole
> > time deal with things like dropped .dhelp files in /usr/doc while the rest
> > of the packa
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 07:55:13PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> read "mv" as "cp, verify success, rm old, create symlink, and the whole
> time deal with things like dropped .dhelp files in /usr/doc while the rest
> of the package has moved to /usr/share/doc already"
...which of course means if yo
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 03:51:47PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> > > 1. mv /usr/doc/* /usr/share/doc
>
> This isn't trivial, because you cannot be sure that /usr/doc and
> /usr/share/doc are located at the same filesystem.
> And don't miss the (few
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 03:53:47PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 04:54:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Then for woody+1 we let people drop the scripts whenever they feel
> > like. Crufty symlinks get removed when everyone updates to a new
> > base-files that rm's sym
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Not an option? You're missing my point again. I've got
Chris> packages installed that are 2.4.0. In many cases, these are
Chris> the latest, up-to-date versions. Ok, my hypothetical
Chris> Mr. A. S. Shole (the name says it a
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > 1. mv /usr/doc/* /usr/share/doc
This isn't trivial, because you cannot be sure that /usr/doc and
/usr/share/doc are located at the same filesystem.
And don't miss the (few) packages which already moved to
/usr/share/doc (where some of them left back a
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 03:18:13PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> > e) pointless if the package maintainer does not move change the next
> >version of the package to use /usr/share/doc
>
> Nothing prevents you from running the script again after up
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 04:54:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Then for woody+1 we let people drop the scripts whenever they feel
> like. Crufty symlinks get removed when everyone updates to a new
> base-files that rm's symlinks from within /usr/doc in its postinst on
> upgrade, or something
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> e) pointless if the package maintainer does not move change the next
>version of the package to use /usr/share/doc
Nothing prevents you from running the script again after upgrading to
potato+1, if there are actually packages with /usr/doc left in p
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 01:21:32PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> What I would like to see is a package containing a script which does *two*
> things:
>
> 1. mv /usr/doc/* /usr/share/doc
> 2. Modify dpkg's internal databases (mainly the .list files in the
> directory /var/lib/dpkg/info) so that the
Hi,
What I would like to see is a package containing a script which does *two*
things:
1. mv /usr/doc/* /usr/share/doc
2. Modify dpkg's internal databases (mainly the .list files in the
directory /var/lib/dpkg/info) so that they are in sync with the
previous changes.
This
a) would make the syst
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Until the (quote: ``future version of policy'' comes out, the
> package in questin (wonko, unless you have forgotten), is in
> violation of the current policy version, (which, in this example,
> happens to be 3.0.0.1). Saying you are stick
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 01:08:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Anthony> FWIW, I don't think forcing all packages to have postinst's
> Anthony> and prerm's for the rest of eternity to be a particularly
> Anthony> good solution either.
> You don't need it for the rest of eternity. We
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> It may be too late. We *NEED* consensus on this sort of thing:
>> No, we do not need a consensus. The DPL can still m
Hi,
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> FWIW, I don't think forcing all packages to have postinst's
Anthony> and prerm's for the rest of eternity to be a particularly
Anthony> good solution either.
You don't need it for the rest of eternity. We create the
postinst,
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 11:25:41PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > /usr# mv doc share/doc/usrdoc
> > /usr# ln -s /usr/share/doc/usrdoc doc
> >
> > dpkg would deal with that and the docs would all be under /usr/share/doc
> > (though not /usr/share/doc/${PACKAGE}) which makes things still not as
>
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> /usr# mv doc share/doc/usrdoc
> /usr# ln -s /usr/share/doc/usrdoc doc
>
> dpkg would deal with that and the docs would all be under /usr/share/doc
> (though not /usr/share/doc/${PACKAGE}) which makes things still not as
> ælegant as they should be.
Ho
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris> It may be too late. We *NEED* consensus on this sort of thing:
> No, we do not need a consensus. The DPL can still mandate a
> solution by fiat, thank god.
Man, your reading
On Jul 29, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Another option is to provide a package whose job is monitor the
> directories in /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc, and maintain the
> /usr/doc/ -> /usr/share/doc/ links as needed. A sysadmin who
> needed/wanted the links could install the package, one who doesn't
> wo
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 10:52:36PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> A cronjob is a bad idea because the links will persist for dpkg operations
> and basically cause upgrades/downgrades to fail.
>
> There is no elegant way to piece wise move a directory spanning multiple
> packages with dpkg.
/usr#
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> FWIW, I don't think forcing all packages to have postinst's and prerm's
> for the rest of eternity to be a particularly good solution either. Are
> there any fundamental problems with using a cronjob instead?
This was just discussed on irc a bit.. Ah,
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 10:41:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Chris> It may be too late. We *NEED* consensus on this sort of thing:
> No, we do not need a consensus. The DPL can still mandate a
> solution by fiat, thank god.
What?
Since when is the DPL mandating a solution bett
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Please hold off that for a week or so. There are
>> constitutional methods for getting contentious stuff into the plicy
>> document, and this seems like an ideal scenario for one of
On 28-Jul-99, 21:37 (CDT), Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And then there are the people who think that we should just say screw
> backwards compatibility and just move the directories without bothering
> with transition. Unfortunately many of them are already uploading
> packages, whi
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please hold off that for a week or so. There are
> constitutional methods for getting contentious stuff into the plicy
> document, and this seems like an ideal scenario for one of them.
It may be too late. We *NEED* consensus on this sort
Joseph Carter wrote:
> Just enough people don't like symlinks to make that not a consensus.
>
> Just enough people don't like trying to move entire trees to make that not
> a consensus.
>
> Just enough people want us not to move anything at all (screw the FHS and
> standards, right? (can you tel
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joey> I'm trying to decide if I should just give up and make
> Joey> debhelper use the FHS directories with no transition.
>
> Please hold off that for a week or so. There are
> constitutional methods for getting contentious stuff into the plicy
> document, an
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:49:30AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joseph> To be quite honest Joey, at this point I'd suggest you just
> Joseph> take one of the workable solutions we've discussed and just
> Joseph> implement the damned things in debhelper, and make it known
> Joseph> how you'v
Hi,
>>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> To be quite honest Joey, at this point I'd suggest you just
Joseph> take one of the workable solutions we've discussed and just
Joseph> implement the damned things in debhelper, and make it known
Joseph> how you've done it. F
Hi,
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> There is no policy prohibiting such a move, on the ocntrary,
>> policy dictates that a move like that happen.
Joey> So is it your opinion that we should just give up and move?
Almost ;-). I do thi
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 03:26:22PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Giuliano> Unfortunately, various people have pre-empted the policy
> > Giuliano> discussion and have started using /usr/share/doc already.
> >
> > There is no policy prohibiting such a move, on the ocntrary,
> > policy dicta
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Giuliano> Unfortunately, various people have pre-empted the policy
> Giuliano> discussion and have started using /usr/share/doc already.
>
> There is no policy prohibiting such a move, on the ocntrary,
> policy dictates that a move like that happen.
So is it
On 27-Jul-99, 14:43 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We would liek to think that fellow maintainers are total incompetents
> and can manage a simple symlink.
I hope there is a "not" missing from that sentence :-). Even if I did
think so about someone, I wouldn't *like* it.
Hi,
>>"Giuliano" == Giuliano Procida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Giuliano> Has no one seriously considered the mess that will happen
Giuliano> if you try to follow this path (namely, making each package
Giuliano> manage the transition by itself)? Think about all the typos
Giuliano> (like "[-L
Regarding the share/doc proposal. My apologies if this repeating
someone else's comments, I have not read all the messages in the
threads.
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:35:04PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc (#40706)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed by Manoj Srivastava; se
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 32448 [ACCEPTED 1999/07/18] Policy should use /etc/rcS.d instead of
> /etc/rc.boot
Bug#32448: [PROPOSED] Policy should suggest /etc/rcS.d instead of /etc/rc.boot
Changed bug title.
> severity 32448 normal
Bug#32448: [ACCEPTED 1999/07/18] Polic
retitle 32448 [ACCEPTED 1999/07/18] Policy should use /etc/rcS.d instead of
/etc/rc.boot
severity 32448 normal
forwarded 32448 debian-policy@lists.debian.org
thanks
> Policy still suggests /etc/rc.boot instead of /etc/rcS.d (#32448)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed on 26 Jan 1999 by Brian S
Hi,
>>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Contact address for virtual package name list (#26159)
>> * Old.
>> * Proposed by Adam di Carlo.
>> * Contact name in virtual-packages-list should be debian-policy, not
>> Christian Schwarz.
>> ( This *must* be implemented, possi
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:35:04PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Policy still suggests /etc/rc.boot instead of /etc/rcS.d (#32448)
> * Stalled for 1 week.
> * Proposed on 26 Jan 1999 by Brian Servis; seconded by Julian Gilbey
> and Joey Hess.
> * Change policy to refer to /etc/rcS.d instead o
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A better way to configure debian systems (#38703)
> * Stalled for 2 weeks.
> * Proposed on 1 Jun 1999 by Goswin Brederlow; seconded by Falk
> Hueffner.
> * Another configuration management proposal.
The one above replaces the one below.
> Configu
On Fri, Jun 25, 1999 at 12:49:23PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Let's Debian blow... gracefully!
> * Old.
> * Proposed by Fabien Ninoles; seconded by Sean E. Perry, Edward
> Betts and Peter Makholm.
> * Creation of a sub-directory aside from main, contrib, non-free
> named data, that wil
Hi,
Thank you, Marcus, for remindig me of this. Yes, I think this
is better than choosing one option or the other, for _other_ people.
As far as I, personally, am concerned, our previous conclusion
on this topic remains the final word -- I have seen nothing new come
up in the r
On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 01:45:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> What if it is true? What if the non-free software does indeed
> provide functionality missing in Debian? We bury our heads in the
> sand and pretend that it does not exist? We do our users a disservice
> and make it h
"Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * MS => Manoj Srivastava
>
> Hi Manoj,
>...
> As you see, this whole issue stems from this one question: «What do
> you want Debian to be?».
>
> MS> What if it is true? What if the non-free software does indeed
> MS> provide functionalit
Hi,
Since Alex is otherwise busy, I have to take his mantle up and
represent what I think is an important balancing aspect of Debian.
>>"DGMS" == Davide G M Salvetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MS> Freedom of software should come on its merits, not because on
MS> Debian it is hard to
* GB => Goswin Brederlow
Hi Goswin,
a little note just to emphasize patents don't make free software any
bit non-free.
So GIFs and the Gimp isn't really a good example (and gimp-nonfree is
misnamed), choose please another one.
The only one thing that can make a piece of software non free is
* MS => Manoj Srivastava
Hi Manoj,
I value your input, but there are some of your points that I can't
really understand.
MS> Freedom of software should come on its merits, not because on
MS> Debian it is hard to find good (but non-free) software.
This is something I agree with. However: De
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> Yes, I argued exactly the same point when this thread came up before
> (on -private, where it never belonged, imo). But note that both of
> the proposals I mentioned would solve this quite handily -- th
Francesco Tapparo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The documentation is a better place for this sort of things.
> >From the packaging manual:
>
>`Suggests'
> This is used to declare that one package may be more useful with
> one or more others. Using this field tells the pack
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Note that the common element of both proposals is that
Chris> someone who has non-free packages in her package list will
Chris> see them, and someone who doesn't won't. This really seems
Chris> like the best approach all 'round.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris> Note that the common element of both proposals is that
> Chris> someone who has non-free packages in her package list will
> Chris> see them, and someone who doesn't won't. This reall
Hi,
[I should be breaking out my absestos suit now, I guess]
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Note that the common element of both proposals is that someone who has
Chris> non-free packages in her package list will see them, and someone who
Chris> d
Francesco Tapparo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My complaint is that dselect offer to install the Suggested package, hinting
> to the user to install it: this strike again the Debian spirit.
We have already discussed this in great detail. Two proposals that
were put forth that both seem reasonab
At 11:45 +0200 1999-06-14, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
So every Package that uses gif would be depreciated, like gimp. It
works perfectly without gif, but with gif support a bit better and gif
support is non-free.
It's only "non-free" in the US.
--
Joel Klecker (aka Espy)Debian
Previously Brock Rozen wrote:
> I will second this.
Lets not.
May I suggest that anyone can submit a proposal, but only actual Debian
developers can second a proposal, signed with a PGP or GnuPG that is
in our keyring. (Brock, this has nothing to do with you, but with Debian
having control over w
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 11:45:01AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> "Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * JL => Jim Lynch
> > software. This means, IMHO, that free packages should not reference
> > non-free packages in the Debian sense (i.e., suggests, recommends, and
>
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
