Re: Erlang Public Licence and GPL

On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 08:52:01AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm wonder whether the Erlang Public Licence and the GPL > are compatible. The EPL is a Mozilla PL derivative and > the MPL is incompatible with the GPL, so I fear about the > EPL status. > > Can anyone confirm ? Please

RE: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

> > The sorts of information which currently get displayed, but which don't > get prompted for, are things like "Restarting internet superserver: > inetd", or "Updating /etc/network/interfaces: succeeded". > > To me, those sorts of outputs seem useful and helpful, so I think policy > should proba

Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

Anthony Towns wrote: > The first paragraph of that section states: > > ``The package installation scripts should avoid producing output > which it (sic) is unnecessary for the user to see and should rely > on `dpkg' to stave off boredom on the part of a user installing >

Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 10:56:50AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > Anthony Towns wrote: > > The first paragraph of that section states: > > ``The package installation scripts should avoid producing output > > which it (sic) is unnecessary for the user to see and should rely > > on `dpkg'

Re: policy changes toward Non-Interactive installation

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > I have a number of serious technical objections to this. Saying all I mean in one sentence: I don't want to change one bit of what is done, but when. > >>"goswin" == goswin brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > goswin> Instal

Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: Anthony> Well, yes. "Bytecompiling emacs modules: emacs19 emacs20 Anthony> xemacs20" would be useful output, by comparison. How about something like this: Messages should only be displayed on the console if: - it represents a slow task, eg compi

Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 08:56:47AM +1100, Brian May wrote: > Any other messages probably should be done via debconf. debconf isn't suitable for policy yet, apparently. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG sig

Bug#75508: packaging-manual: a wrong example

Package: packaging-manual Version: 3.2.1.0 Severity: normal in chapter 1, there is an example as listed by: $ grep tar /usr/share/doc/packaging-manual/packaging.html/ch-binarypkg.html dpkg --fsys-tarfile filename.deb | tar xof usr/doc/\*copyright | less

Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

Brian May wrote: > How about something like this: > > Messages should only be displayed on the console if: > > - it represents a slow task, eg compiling modules (emacs) or compiling > ls-R files (latex). Of course, this is a subjective criteria... What > is a "slow" task? Policy explictly says y

Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

Anthony Towns wrote: > > > The sorts of information which currently get displayed, but which don't > > > get prompted for, are things like "Restarting internet superserver: > > > inetd", or "Updating /etc/network/interfaces: succeeded". > > Or <40 lines of garbage ralating to byte-compiling obscure

Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001024 15:23]: > Policy explictly says you should NOT output things to "stave off boredom > on the part of a user". Displaying stuff for tasks that may be slow on > my 386 clearly falls under that. Hmm; I myself like twizzle sticks (ala fsck) to let one know the ma

Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

Seth Arnold wrote: > * Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001024 15:23]: > > Policy explictly says you should NOT output things to "stave off boredom > > on the part of a user". Displaying stuff for tasks that may be slow on > > my 386 clearly falls under that. > > Hmm; I myself like twizzle sticks (a

Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:28:09PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > The sorts of information which currently get displayed, but which don't > > > > get prompted for, are things like "Restarting internet superserver: > > > > inetd", or "Updating /etc/network/interfaces: succeed

Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

Anthony Towns wrote: > > But consider: one of these emacs packages is installing and > > it byte-compiles ok. Why should we display the message? Remember > > staving off boredom is not an answer. > > ``Policy shouldn't say packages should do such and such, because policy > says packages shouldn't

Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Joey Hess wrote: > If we modify policy to say this kind of thing should be done, I'd really > like to see it happen via some kind of mechanism that can easily let it > be stored in a log. I know this has been discussed in the past, > inconclusively but maybe it's time to revi

Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

> "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joey> I take your earlier point about a daemon maybe hanging as it Joey> restarts, and perhaps a emacs byte-compile can hang Joey> too. Heck, *anything* could conceivably hang. If that Joey> happens though, there are tools like

Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 04:16:02PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > Anthony Towns wrote: > If we modify policy to say this kind of thing should be done, I'd really > like to see it happen via some kind of mechanism that can easily let it > be stored in a log. I know this has been discussed in the past, >

Bug#75518: debian-policy: link to FHS is droken

Package: debian-policy Version: 3.1.1.1 Severity: normal The link in section 3.1.1 to http://www.pathname.com/fhs is broken; that host name no longer exists. -- System Information Debian Release: 2.2 Kernel Version: Linux becket.becket.net 2.2.15 #1 Wed Jul 12 17:26:35 EDT 2000 i686 unknown

Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

> The sorts of information which currently get displayed, but which don't > get prompted for, are things like "Restarting internet superserver: > inetd", or "Updating /etc/network/interfaces: succeeded". > > To me, those sorts of outputs seem useful and helpful, so I think policy > should probably