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
Greetings,
If I understand it, we got to the current situation with regard to
/usr/doc and /usr/share/doc by something like the following process:
We were FSSSTD compliant, and everyone was happy -- except those
working on FSSSTD, who saw some problems with the FSSSTD. They worked
on the
On 03-Aug-99, 11:56 (CDT), Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I second this. BTW, where are the policy changing rules written down? I
> just looked and couldn't find them.
>
They're now in the debian-policy package, as
/usr/doc/debian-policy/proposal.*
The wording is weird, because i
Le Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 02:15:38PM -0700, Joey Hess écrivait:
> So debian's new statement WRT partial upgrades will be "you can install
> packages from unstable. However, you may have to edit arbitrary files
> and change your system in arbitrary undocumented ways to make them work
> as you would ex
Le Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 09:44:41PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman écrivait:
> Previously Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > The only working solution I see is that we should have a group of
> > (known) developers that would decide in such difficult cases.
>
> Someone should request the technical committee for a
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 04:02:14PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> + For the release code-named "Potato", packages should
> + continue to use /usr/doc instead of the FHS's
> + /usr/share/doc, for consistency. For uploads to
> + "Potato" (and the e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes, in Bug#41121:
> Add the following section 5.4 as the next to last paragraph (i.e. before
> the one beginning "Since the Debian base system...").
> A program may also use the VISUAL environment variable [...]
I se
> I could swear that a couple of people *DID* say exactly that -- that
> if we fix debhelper and whatever the other tool is, we'll only have a
> handful of packages left to fix. Obviously, you and *I* know this is
> pretty darned unlikely to happen by Potato's release! :-)
(I think the issue was
> PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition
> + For the release code-named "Potato", packages should
> + continue to use /usr/doc instead of the FHS's
> + /usr/share/doc, for consistency. For uploads to
> + "Potato" (and the earlier
"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> /usr/doc whereever this document refers to + /usr/share/doc.
Julian> Seconded.
Wusses. :-)
netgod
Debianism [DEH-BEE-IN-ISIM] /n./ An open source (GPL'd)
religion founded on the beliefs of the GNU-GPL
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 04:02:14PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > + For the release code-named "Potato", packages should
> > + continue to use /usr/doc instead of the FHS's
> > + /usr/share/doc, for consistency. For uploads
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 04:02:14PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.0.1.0
>
> PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition
The problem with this is that there are more than 100 packages using
/usr/share/doc already, and there likely will be more. For the ef
>
> "Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> /usr/doc whereever this document refers to + /usr/share/doc.
>
> Julian> Seconded.
>
> Wusses. :-)
Huh? What does that mean?
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 15:54:49 +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Wusses. :-)
>
> Huh? What does that mean?
"wuss" is US slang for "wimp" or perhaps "coward". What netgod probably
means is that this proposal is basically a cop-out, postponing the work
until after potato's release. I agree with t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland) wrote on 04.08.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 03-Aug-99, 11:56 (CDT), Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I second this. BTW, where are the policy changing rules written down? I
> > just looked and couldn't find them.
> >
>
> They're now in the debia
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > BTW: The footnote pointed out by Antti-Juhani should be reworded also.
> > (Yes, this is the footnote saying we should still follow /var/spool/mail
> > regardless of what FHS says).
>
> I oppose the footnote. [...]
Sorry for the bad wording...
I mean
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ruud de
Rooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>From the Packaging manual, section 8.2:
>
> Thus `Depends' allows package maintainers to impose an order in which
> packages should be configured.
>
> `dpkg' will not configure packages whose dependencies aren't
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 12:16:51PM -0700, Carl R. Witty wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 08:32:57AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > > > I second this proposal, but please change the word "dependency"
> > > > > by "Pre-Dependency"
> > > Why does /var
"Ian" == Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> What does dpkg do in the case of circular dependencies?
It dies a horrible, violent death -- see Bugs 22999, 23611, 23906,
24626, 24690, 24923, 26084, 29901, 34136, 34174, 34287, 38155, 38288,
38378, 38381, 38393, 38754, 39204, 39275, 41611,
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.0.1.0
>
> PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition
>
> ABSTRACT: If we start moving the contents of /usr/doc to
> /usr/share/doc at this point, not long before a release, we will
> either have to delay the r
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 03:40:50PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> What does dpkg do in the case of circular dependencies?
It breaks the cycle (I'm not sure by which criteria) and configures the
packages in the newly-defined order.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 01:10:35PM -0400, Johnie Ingram wrote:
> Ian> What does dpkg do in the case of circular dependencies?
>
> It dies a horrible, violent death
No it does not.
> -- see Bugs 22999, 23611, 23906,
> 24626, 24690, 24923, 26084, 29901, 34136, 34174, 34287, 38155, 38288,
> 38378,
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 03:40:50PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > What does dpkg do in the case of circular dependencies?
>
> It breaks the cycle (I'm not sure by which criteria) and configures the
> packages in the newly-defined order.
APT brea
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
> Therefore, I propose that Packages intended for for the distributions
> code-named "Potato" (and "Slink") continue to use /usr/doc. This will
> ensure that Potato is consistent. Plus, this gives us an entire
> release cycle to find a smooth transition pa
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> "wuss" is US slang for "wimp" or perhaps "coward". What netgod probably
> means is that this proposal is basically a cop-out, postponing the work
> until after potato's release. I agree with that, but the powers that be
> regrettably do not seem to
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (I think the issue was with the /usr/doc->/usr/share/doc move, not
> with FHS compliance.
Yes, I'm trying to see the big picture, though. Why are we moving to
/usr/share/doc? FHS. Well, then, what about the FHS, are we close?
No. So the only thing
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think there are several wrong assumptions here:
Hmm, maybe so. Or at least arguable points. But these were all in
the preamble, not in the proposal itself. The proposal was a pretty
simple statement. :-)
> 1. "Today is not long before a release".
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 04:02:14PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition
> The problem with this is that there are more than 100 packages using
> /usr/share/doc already, and there likely will be more.
I've
Laurent Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My very personal opinion about all this, is that we need more
> abstraction : packages _should_not_ hardcode installation paths. I
> think that it should be an option that the sysadmin should be able to
> change anytime, without having to rebuild all
On 5 Aug 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
> Laurent Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > My very personal opinion about all this, is that we need more
> > abstraction : packages _should_not_ hardcode installation paths. I
> > think that it should be an option that the sysadmin should be able to
>
> "Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Laurent Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> My very personal opinion about all this, is that we need more
>> abstraction : packages _should_not_ hardcode installation
>> paths. I think that it should be an option that th
> "JP" == Jean Pierre LeJacq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JP> On 5 Aug 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
>> Laurent Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > My very personal opinion about all this, is that we need more >
>> abstraction : packages _should_not_ hardcode installation
>>
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 05:14:37PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> > > Wusses. :-)
> >
> > Huh? What does that mean?
>
> "wuss" is US slang for "wimp" or perhaps "coward". What netgod probably
> means is that this proposal is basically a cop-out, postponing the work
> until after potato's re
33 matches
Mail list logo
