Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
Do we have consensus on any of the listed amendments? Let me know..
Note: for details of the policy process, see
http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is
available on the web at http://kitenet.net/~joey/policy-
Anthony Towns wrote:
> What do people think of:
Well, it's significantly different from the original proposal, which I
disliked. i like your version much better, and would second it if it were
formally proposed.
> --- - Wed Dec 8 22:11:23 1999
> +++ policy.text Wed Dec 8 22:11:11 1999
> @@ -2
Seconded, although I don't see much need for examples in this
case.
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|_) (_) |_) Palm City, FL USAPGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
Anthony Towns writes:
>
> --FLPM4o+7JoHGki3m
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us
> > > 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 the DFSG". Currently, non-free incl
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 07:29:20PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> A proposal for README.Debian (#42554)
> * Old.
> * Proposed by Stephane Bortzmeyer; seconded by Anthony Towns and
> Richard Braakman.
> * Policy doesn't talk about README.Debian right now. This is an
> addtion to policy that
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 08:36:51PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> 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 defin
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
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
Do we have consensus on any of the listed amendments? Let me know..
Note: for details of the policy process, see
http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is
available on the web at http://kitenet.net/~joey/policy-
On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 09:22:57PM +0100, Pedro Guerreiro wrote:
> > Permit/require use of bz2 for source packages (#39299)
> > * Under discussion.
> > * Proposed on 10 Jun 1999 by Chris Lawrence; seconded by Goswin
> > Brederlow, Josip Rodin and Josip Rodin.
>
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 11:02:29PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Permit/require use of bz2 for source packages (#39299)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed on 10 Jun 1999 by Chris Lawrence; seconded by Goswin
> Brederlow, Josip Rodin and Josip Rodin.
^^^
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 11:02:29PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Echo -n (#48247)
> * Proposed by Raul Miller.
> * Amend policy to say /bin/sh must be a POSIX shell, but with the
> addition that "echo -n" must not generate a newline.
Ugh, I hadn't realized POSIX doesn't specify echo -n has to
Here's notes on the list of accepted amendments vis-a-vis my draft new
version of policy:
>Accepted Amendments
>
> MIME support sub-policy (#46516)
Included.
> Tech-ctte: /usr/share/doc (#45561)
Included.
> Amend contrib definiti
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
This is another summary of two weeks of activity on the policy list.
Work is underway for a new release of policy.
Note: for details of the policy process, see
http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is
available
On Sat, 09 Oct at 19:27 -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Mailbox locking (#43651)
> * Stalled for 2 weeks.
> * Proposed by Roland Rosenfeld; seconded by Joey Hess.
> * "The Debian policy is not very clear in the definition of the way,
> mailbox locking should be implemented. It only points to a
[cut the CC: field!]
On Sun, Oct 10, 1999 at 12:22:52PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > Permit/require use of bz2 for source packages (#39299)
> > > * Old.
> > > * Proposed on 10 Jun 1999 by Chris Lawrence; seconded by Goswin
> > > Brederlow.
> > > * "I propose that we permit the use
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 42849 [ACCEPTED 17/08/99] FHS-compliant location of compiled examples
Bug#42849: [PROPOSED] FHS-compliant location of compiled examples
Changed Bug title.
> severity 42849 normal
Bug#42849: [ACCEPTED 17/08/99] FHS-compliant location of compiled
retitle 42849 [ACCEPTED 17/08/99] FHS-compliant location of compiled examples
severity 42849 normal
forwarded 42849 debian-policy@lists.debian.org
retitle 41547 [ACCEPTED 10/08/99] Correct section 3.3 to take account of file-rc
severity 41547 normal
forwarded 41547 debian-policy@lists.debian.org
On Sun, Oct 10, 1999 at 07:20:10PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Permit/require use of bz2 for source packages (#39299)
> > * Old.
> > * Proposed on 10 Jun 1999 by Chris Lawrence; seconded by Goswin
> > Brederlow.
> > * "I propose that we permit the use of bzip2 to compress source
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 07:27:05PM -0700, Joey Hess 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, m
On Sun, 1999-10-10 at 03:37:47 +, Keith Harbaugh wrote:
> Am I the only person who misses:
>Weekly Policy Summary, on debian-devel and debian-policy, since 09-24, and
>Debian Weekly News, on debian-devel, since 09-28?
Don't worry about the above comment.
Within one hour
Keith Harbaugh wrote:
> Am I the only person who misses:
>Weekly Policy Summary, on debian-devel and debian-policy, since 09-24, and
>Debian Weekly News, on debian-devel, since 09-28?
I posted a 2 week policy summary today.
I skipped posting DWN to debian-devel, since it was s
Am I the only person who misses:
Weekly Policy Summary, on debian-devel and debian-policy, since 09-24, and
Debian Weekly News, on debian-devel, since 09-28?
(I am sending this to the smaller list, just to minimize traffic.)
Sorry, I was unable to get a summry out last week. This summary covers 2
weeks.
Note: for details of the policy process, see
http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is
available on the web at http://kitenet.net/~joey/policy-weekly.html.
Accep
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
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
Please let me know if you think any proposals have a consensus.
Note: for details of the policy process, see
http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is
available on the web at http://kitenet.net/~joey/policy-week
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
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
Please let me know if you think any proposals have a consensus.
Note: for details of the policy process, see
http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is
available on the web at http://kitenet.net/~joey/policy-week
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
Old /usr/share/doc proposals have been removed from this list.
Note: for details of the policy process, see
http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is
available on the web at http://kitenet.net/~joey/policy-weekl
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.
--
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
Note: for details of the policy process, see
http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is
available on the web at http://kitenet.net/~joey/policy-weekly.html.
Accepted Amendments
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, 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
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
With only 27 messages, it's been quite a quiet week as we wait for
word from the technical committe on /usr/share/doc.
Note: for details of the policy process, see
http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is
avail
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
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week (and last week).
Note: for details of the policy process, see
http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is
available on the web at http://kitenet.net/~joey/policy-weekly.html.
Accepted Ame
> + 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
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
Note: for details of the policy process, see
http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is
available on the web at http://kitenet.net/~joey/policy-weekly.html.
Accepted Amendments
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
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
