> I'm currently unsubscribed to -policy - I should be resubscribing soon,
> when my free time increases to that amount needed to follow policy. So
> apologies if this has been covered before...
>
> Doesn't an md5sums file need to have file lengths to work? I
> understoood that there were known
> One of the things that really annoys me about prepackaged
> distributions is the way they tend to ignore everything that isn't in
> packages. E.g., the only way to get non-deb GTK themes in
> /usr/local/share/themes recognized by the GTK config is to link them
> into /usr/share/themes, which is
On Thu, Jun 17, 1999 at 01:49:30AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> Just a brief note about the thread there: if md5sums are included in
> packages, they will *only* be included for system integrity checks.
> They serve *no* useful security purpose. Given this, the MD5 sums
> themselves should be
New FHS draft. If you have any comments, please use the FHS mailing
list (to avoid having two separate discussions) or you may send them
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks.
I believe this draft still addresses the concerns that some Debian
developers expressed about FHS 2.0 even though it's not the com
(Wow, that was brilliant. Let's try that again.)
New FHS draft. If you have any comments, please use the FHS mailing
list (to avoid having two separate discussions) or you may send them
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks.
I believe this draft still addresses the concerns that some Debian
developers e
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Just a brief note about the thread there: if md5sums are included in
>packages, they will *only* be included for system integrity checks.
>They serve *no* useful security purpose. Given this, the MD5 sums
>themselves should be adequate for the integrity t
Hi people,
In the 2.2.x series there is a feature that allows the user to define
shells for certain types of files. Selecting on extension or a few magic
bytes.
This could be useful for languages where the "#!" trick wouldn't work,
like lisp. For the moment I have in a documentation-file:
#!/bi
* 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
* 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph Carter) wrote:
>Not even. pico CANNOT be packaged for Debian! The best that can be done
>is offer the source and let you build it yourself. If you do that, pico
>will provide the editor alternative. If you want it to be the default
>system editor, anybody else using yo
Hello all!
Now that Joey is posting a "weekly policy summary", *please* ensure to
change the title before replying to the group regarding points
raised. Otherwise, there will probably end up being multiple threads
with the subject "Re: weekly policy summary", which is really
unhelpful.
Julian
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
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> > --- 7,10
> >
> > umask 002
> > test -x /usr/bin/check-sendfile && /usr/bin/check-sendfile || /bin/true
> > + test -f /usr/local/etc/profile && . /usr/local/etc/profile
>
> Eeks, no! There's no such directory as /usr/local/etc. /
"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! :)
Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >
> > Agreed. And again, this is not personal, just Debian must retain control.
> > Any interested in being a part of this can simply apply for maintainer
> > status
I'd agree with something along these lines, just from my own experiences
with my network, and more recently having to reload both of my surviving
machines pretty much from scratch. (Good reason for having multiple
drives)
My own thought would be to keep the regular config files in /etc or
/etc/,
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
