On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 06:07:00PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hi Ansgar and everybody,
>
> there seems to be a consensus that the Policy should be updated, but there are
> two non-compatible proposals.
Hi, in my opinion this paragraph in policy is just fine and helps us to
keep control over t
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 09:03:14AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Gerrit Pape writes:
> > Hi, in my opinion this paragraph in policy is just fine
>
> I really don't agree. Policy currently implies that the maintainers of
> packages control their priority settings in the a
unmerge 758231
retitle 758231 rsyslog: is priority important, depends on packages with
priority extra
reassign 758231 rsyslog 8.2.2-3
severity 758231 serious
retitle 758233 cron: is priority important, depends on package with priority
extra
reassign 758233 cron 3.0pl1-124.2
severity 758233 seriou
retitle 758234 Remove priority "extra", make all corresponding packages
priority "optional"
quit
Since discussion on this topic seems to have stopped, I suggest this
patch to remove the priority "extra" for Debian packages.
All packages that currently are of priority "extra" shall be changed to
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 03:17:14PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As I understand it, your primary concern is around the decision-making
> process for handling changes to priority (particularly increasing
> priority).
It's not necessarily the decision-making process. Actually I didn't
look in detai
hall be done
through ftpmaster's override file, which will cause lintian warnings
for affected packages so that the maintainers can adapt the packages'
control files gradually.
---
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 09:59:09PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 23/08/14 17:54, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> >
:02PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> All packages that currently are of priority "extra" shall be changed to
> priority "optional" for the reasons outlined in message #35 to this
> report
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=758234#35
>
>
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:32:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> fcron doesn't appear to run cron.daily by default, and neither does bcron.
> *Only* the cron package ships a crontab that runs /etc/cron.daily by
> default; anacron also supports running cron.daily, but relies on cron itself
> to tri
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 01:43:57PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I suspect that we need to document that packages may rely on @reboot,
> @yearly, @monthly, @weekly, @daily, and @hourly, and also on the */2
> syntax. We also need to document that, contrary POSIX, files in
> /etc/cron.d have seven fi
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 12:22:04AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> For my part, I find the whole resolv.conf concept flawed since
> changing it does not affect running process, so I always use a proxy
> DNS.
Yes, I concur. Not that this is the solution to your current problem,
but you might be int
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 03:36:30PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> The policy manual says (9.3.2 Writing the scripts):
>
> The init.d scripts should ensure that they will behave sensibly
> if invoked with start when the service is already running, or
> with stop when it isn'
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 09:36:37AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 03:36:30PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > > The policy manual says (9.3.2 Writing the scripts):
> > >
> > >
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 08:42:06AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > Or better yet, instead of duplicating such code in each and every
> > daemon, as already done for fork/exec, detach from terminal, cleanup
> > filedescrip
13 matches
Mail list logo
