section 4.7.4 is poorly worded

2000-09-28 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
4.7.4 Sharing configuration files Packages that are not tagged as conflicting with each other must not specify the same file as conffile. This is very poorly worded. The text used to read - Only packages that are tagged *conflicting* with each other may specify the same file as `conffile'.

Re: section 4.7.4 is poorly worded

2000-09-28 Thread Josip Rodin
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 11:29:31AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > 4.7.4 Sharing configuration files > > Packages that are not tagged as conflicting with each other must not specify > the same file as conffile. > > > This is very poorly worded. The text used to read - > > Only packages

Re: section 4.7.4 is poorly worded

2000-09-28 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
> > FWIW I understood them both just fine. I think it was changed because "may" > and "must" have explicit meanings now... > It is rather close to reading as a double negative.

Re: section 4.7.4 is poorly worded

2000-09-28 Thread Andrew McMillan
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > > 4.7.4 Sharing configuration files > > Packages that are not tagged as conflicting with each other must not specify > the same file as conffile. > > > This is very poorly worded. The text used to read - > > Only packages that are tagged *conflicting* with each

Re: section 4.7.4 is poorly worded

2000-09-28 Thread Chris Waters
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 09:33:44PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > FWIW I understood them both just fine. I think it was changed because "may" > and "must" have explicit meanings now... I was able to understand the first only after reading it over a few times. The second was immediately clear. No p

Re: section 4.7.4 is poorly worded

2000-09-28 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
> > Or what about: > > Packages which specify the same file as `conffile' must be tagged as > *conflicting* with each other. > > > Which loses the double-negative, and retains the strong _must_ without > becoming impenetrable. > I like this text. Perhaps it should read "file as a 'conffile'"

Bug#72335: PROPOSED] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for debian/rules

2000-09-28 Thread Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
On 2925T152912+0200, Roman Hodek wrote: > A patch to dpkg-buildpackage is sufficient, as the daemons just call > dpkg-buildpackage -B. Ok. > Does it make sense to allow one 'build-*' target without the other? If > a package can utilize the separation, it needs both anyway. In extreme > cases

Re: Preparing Debian for using capabilities: file ownership.

2000-09-28 Thread Brian May
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Raul> Or, put another way, we're going to have to re-write a lot Raul> of administrative docs to adapt to a capabilities-based Raul> security setup. And then we'll have to do it again for Raul> MAC. ;-) or should that be