Je 1999/07/06(2)/13:07, Marco d'Itri montris sian geniecon skribante:
> On Jul 06, joost witteveen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >But for now, I hope you like the progress being made so far.
> I don't. You haven't replied to my concerns.
I'm very sorry, I never seem to have gotten your reply.
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 04:22:39PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
> > Um. Given glibc2.1 it would be Very Unsmart to try to use potato packages
> > on a slink system.
>
> Arch: all
Yes this could in theory work, but it's a very small subset of packages
and I'd rather it be consid
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 11:02:26AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> If the upstream changelog file is HTML formatted, it must be accessible as
> `/usr/doc//changelog.html.gz' with
> `/usr/doc//changelog.gz' being a symbolic link to it.
Er, uhh, I don't like that because I think that, in general, H
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 05:45:46PM +0200, Thomas Schoepf wrote:
> [Please CC me, I'm not subscribed to this list]
>
> I have a package that contains a README file with the program's history at
> the bottom. I've read the Policy about changelog files but afai can see
> this is a special case.
>
>
> My idea (please note, this is only a first idea and there may be some
> difficulties with which should be fixed) is, that the new (FHS aware)
> debhelper could add something in postinst, which creates a symlink
> /usr/doc/ pointing to /usr/share/doc/ if (and only
> if) there is no special "flag"
On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Did we come up with a sane transition for /usr/share/info yet?
I think so:
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9904/msg00016.html
There are some pending issues:
* Need a lintian check for the use of install-info's hardcoded
--infodir in
Hi *,
To deal with a wishlist bug with which I agree, I'm going to replace the
LGPL in base-files by the new "Lesser GNU Public License", which is also
called "LGPL". Since the new LGPL is the successor of the old LGPL, I
would consider that copyright files saying "you will find the Library GNU
Pu
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 10:07:46AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Norbert Nemec wrote:
> > Ok, but the problem I see, is that you are forced to answer all the
> > questions right there in the middle of the installation. If you don't want
> > to (or can't) decide right there, there is oten no possibility
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 10:04:09AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Norbert Nemec wrote:
> > IMO, packages should under no circumstances complain
> > about anything if it is avoidable at all. No matter if there is a automatic
> > configuration system or not. We should simply make it policy that a package
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> To deal with a wishlist bug with which I agree, I'm going to replace the
> LGPL in base-files by the new "Lesser GNU Public License", which is also
> called "LGPL". Since the new LGPL is the successor of the old LGPL, I
> would consider that co
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 12:10:46PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> To deal with a wishlist bug with which I agree, I'm going to replace the
> LGPL in base-files by the new "Lesser GNU Public License", which is also
> called "LGPL". Since the new LGPL is the successor of the old LGPL, I
> w
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 11:30:55AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> I'm sorry Joseph, but you're trying to throw years of tradition out the
> window, and I just can't stand for it.
Maybe it's because I've only been around since bo and even then I upgraded
to hamm within 48 hours of installing bo, but thi
Joey Hess wrote:
> I'm sorry Joseph, but you're trying to throw years of tradition out the
> window, and I just can't stand for it.
Ok, that's a bit curt and I apologize. Now that I'm actually awake what I
meant to say is:
We have always had partial upgradability as one of our goals, albeit one o
Joseph Carter wrote:
> When slink's epic4 had a DoS in the ANSI color parser the fix was "install
> potato's epic4"---but that couldn't be expected to work given potato is
> glibc2.1 could it? In fact it wouldn't, so I rebuilt it on master.
I just did a test. Installed a new stable system, inform
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does somebody feel the need to clarificate this, so that it explicitly
> says whether it refers to the old LGPL, the new one, or both of
> them?
Yes, please. I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of making
/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL the new ve
I'm sorry Joseph, but you're trying to throw years of tradition out the
window, and I just can't stand for it.
Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 04:22:39PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > Um. Given glibc2.1 it would be Very Unsmart to try to use potato packages
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 11:58:40AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
> > I'm sorry Joseph, but you're trying to throw years of tradition out the
> > window, and I just can't stand for it.
>
> Ok, that's a bit curt and I apologize. Now that I'm actually awake what I
> meant to say is:
>
>
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 12:29:28PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
> > When slink's epic4 had a DoS in the ANSI color parser the fix was "install
> > potato's epic4"---but that couldn't be expected to work given potato is
> > glibc2.1 could it? In fact it wouldn't, so I rebuilt it o
Hi,
>>"Richard" == Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> The best thing to do is probably to make sure that /usr/doc/ and
Richard> /usr/share/doc end up on the same filesystem, but in separate
Richard> directories.
Umm, how do we do that? We have really no control over
Hi,
>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Josip> proposing that a new virtual package be registered on the
Josip> official virtual packages list. The proper name would be
Josip> 'ftp-server', because IIRC there is a package called ftpd
Josip> already.
Is there any objec
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Yann" == Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yann> 2.1.7. Subsections
Yann> "The packages in the _main_, _contrib_,
Yann> and _non-free_ sections are grouped further into _s
On 8 Jul 1999, Rob Tillotson wrote:
>
> (Just in case anyone wonders, one of my packages -- both upstream and
> Debian -- falls into category (1) above, specifically because I
> thought that it was likely that RMS would someday decide to sabotage
> the LGPL. I may be stuck with using it, but I'm
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 10:46:30AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Richard> The best thing to do is probably to make sure that /usr/doc/ and
> Richard> /usr/share/doc end up on the same filesystem, but in separate
> Richard> directories.
>
> Umm, how do we do that? We have really no
Just curious how Debian is going to stand on the FHS requirements for
/usr/include kernel headers in section 6.1.5 of the FHS? Is the
practice of including known good headers with libc6-dev going to
continue? If so then the exception should be noted in the new policy
manual.
Quoting http://www.
> >>"Richard" == Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Richard> The best thing to do is probably to make sure that /usr/doc/ and
> Richard> /usr/share/doc end up on the same filesystem, but in separate
> Richard> directories.
>
> Umm, how do we do that? We have really no con
> "Brian" == Brian Servis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> Just curious how Debian is going to stand on the FHS
Brian> requirements for /usr/include kernel headers in section
Brian> 6.1.5 of the FHS? Is the practice of including known good
Brian> headers with libc6-dev going
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 03:52:30PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> Just for examples, I cite VMWare and OSS as two packages that fail
> miserably on a Debian system because it's so different.
The way OSS does it is broken anyway. I can't speak fro vmware.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27 matches
Mail list logo
