G John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Where can I put a package that is not dangerous, and is
> functional, but is still in early stages of development? I imagine it
> might detract a bit from the rest of the stable distribution, and yet
> there are perhaps some who would like access
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, G John Lapeyre wrote:
> Where can I put a package that is not dangerous, and is
> functional, but is still in early stages of development?
What about `experimental'?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCV
Where can I put a package that is not dangerous, and is
functional, but is still in early stages of development? I imagine it
might detract a bit from the rest of the stable distribution, and yet
there are perhaps some who would like access to it.
I am thinking of the stereoscopic
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> `However, we might consider having a few packages in unstable which
>> will not be included in the `frozen' distribution automatically,
>> for example, if the upstream maintainers don't want u
Hi,
>>"Jaldhar" == Jaldhar H Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jaldhar> As for the larger issue, while it is true that unstable will
Jaldhar> become stable eventually, surely this won't be allowed to
Jaldhar> happen until a thorough review has been made and all serious
Jaldhar> bugs removed? I hop
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998,Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> > Yes. Beta software is ok for "unstable". Only "critical" software (i.e.,
> > programs that are likely to trash your filesystem) should go into
> > "experimental".
>
> I disagree here.
>
> If beta is no
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> `However, we might consider having a few packages in unstable which will
> not be included in the `frozen' distribution automatically, for example,
> if the upstream maintainers don't want us to include it in a stable Debian
> release.'
In fact, it
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> > Yes. Beta software is ok for "unstable". Only "critical" software (i.e.,
> > programs that are likely to trash your filesystem) should go into
> > "experimental".
> If beta is not ok for stable, then it is not ok for unstable either,
> because unstable may become frozen and later unstable at any time.
stable, of course.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> Yes. Beta software is ok for "unstable". Only "critical" software (i.e.,
> programs that are likely to trash your filesystem) should go into
> "experimental".
I disagree here.
If beta is not ok for stable, then i
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The liblockfile-dev package contains a header file /usr/include/lockfile.h
> which declares
>
> int lockfile_create(const char *lockfile, int retries);
> int lockfile_remove(const char *lockfile);
> int lockfile_touch(const char *lockfil
On 26 Jan 1998, Rob Browning wrote:
> "A. P. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, but is liblockfile relevant to MTAs and MUAs or also to any program
> > that needs to lock a file? I'm having doubts about whether I can use it
> > locking shared data files in addressbook package, sinc
"A. P. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, but is liblockfile relevant to MTAs and MUAs or also to any program
> that needs to lock a file? I'm having doubts about whether I can use it
> locking shared data files in addressbook package, since it seems to
> geared towards stuff from /var
On 26 Jan 1998, Rob Browning wrote:
> "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 1. Is the use of liblockfile mandatory or just A Good Thing? (or a bad
> > thing?)
> > imapd has its own locking scheme which it shares with pine but no other
> > apps afaik. Is that ok or shall I patch it t
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> 1. Is the use of liblockfile mandatory or just A Good Thing? (or a bad
> thing?)
See policy manual, section 4.5. It's current policy for MTAs and MUAs to
either use liblockfile or implement a compatible locking mechanism.
> imapd has its own lockin
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. Is the use of liblockfile mandatory or just A Good Thing? (or a bad
> thing?)
>
> imapd has its own locking scheme which it shares with pine but no other
> apps afaik. Is that ok or shall I patch it to use liblockfile?
I'm in favor of always u
1. Is the use of liblockfile mandatory or just A Good Thing? (or a bad
thing?)
imapd has its own locking scheme which it shares with pine but no other
apps afaik. Is that ok or shall I patch it to use liblockfile?
Also Ilya Ovchinnikov has sent me a patch which he claims "...fixed
locking pro
17 matches
Mail list logo
