Re: Bug#61116: /etc/motd references BOTH /usr/doc/*/copyright AND /usr/share/doc/*/copyright

What Santiago is doing is wrong. The whole point in of the transition being done is never have to tell users "look there, or else: there". In fact I remember that you, Santiago, were among the ones that made this happen in the past blindly uploading packages in /usr/share/doc but with no transi

Re: /etc/motd references BOTH /usr/doc/*/copyright AND /usr/share/doc/*/copyright

On 27 Mar 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > This is my take on the subject. An user should not need to > know about /usr/share/doc; mentioning it, espescially with the > wording that implies that one needs look into both dirs to be sure, > is exactly the kind of user interface lossage we

[PROPOSAL] Permissions of /var/log.

reassign 35504 debian-policy retitle 35504 [PROPOSAL] Permissions of /var/log. severity 35504 wishlist thanks Some time ago I asked about permissions of /var/log, it's time to do something about it. On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Santiago Vila wrote: > > How do we want

Processed: [PROPOSAL] Permissions of /var/log.

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 35504 debian-policy Bug#35504: base2_1.tgz: ownership/permissions of /var/log (?). Bug reassigned from package `base-files' to `debian-policy'. > retitle 35504 [PROPOSAL] Permissions of /var/log. Bug#35504: base2_1.tgz: ownership/permissions o

Bug#35504: [PROPOSAL] Permissions of /var/log.

Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The /var/log directory should have permissions 2775 (group-writable and > set-group-id) and be owned by root.adm. This is going to allow adm members to delete/create logfiles, probably not what you intended. -- Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 is out! ( http://www

Re: [PROPOSAL] Permissions of /var/log.

Previously Santiago Vila wrote: > The /var/log directory should have permissions 2775 (group-writable and > set-group-id) and be owned by root.adm. Why group writeable? Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore

Re: Discussion on IRC about policy

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Discussion on IRC about policy"): > Wichert suggested a meeting on IRC, for discussion about > -policy. The discussion is open to all comers (irc.debian.org), but > may be moderated and read only, on a channel to be decided. > > Since Wednesday appears t

Re: New policy draft available at http://master.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/policy/

Ian Jackson wrote: > I don't want to get into a detailed argument about the way the > technical committee worked last time, but it doesn't seem to me that > the process was broken, or that it took too long, or that it came up > with a significantly wrong answer. > > Are you complaining that it too