Greetings list. About a week ago, Julian posted a diff to policy, bu 55048, and I sent an email of encouragement directly to Julian. Since that time, I don't recall any other comments towards his diff, so I thought I would try to help stir things up.
So, here is the email I have sent to Julian personally, in the hopes someone will either come forward and second his changes; I cannot, since my Debian Developer Hat is still on backorder. Perhaps, as a reason why I think it should be changed -- when I moved to Debian (from suse, I got there from a short-lived redhat stint, and I got there from a long slackware affair) I read practically everything on the web page, including policy -- and I remember reading, and re-reading this paragraph time and time again, trying to figure out if that applied to me as an admin or not. I decided it *did* apply to me. If I could, I would second this, so I am counting on the regular readers to help out new-comers to Debian. :) Thanks ----- Forwarded message from Seth R Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:32:36 -0800 From: Seth R Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bug#55048: [PROPOSAL] clarify update-rc.d stuff X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from Julian Gilbey on Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 01:12:04AM +0000 I like the change -- I remember wondering if *I* as an admin should use update-rc.d or if things would break if I didn't -- other distros *do* break if you modify things yourself... :) NIce rewording :) On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 01:12:04AM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.1.1.1 > > Well, it seems that my update-rc.d clarifications were confusing. So > here is an attempt to clean up the wording in section 3.3.1 of > policy. There is no intended change of meaning, but it clarifies that > we are only talking about maintainer scripts and not human > administrators. > > There are at least two different, yet functionally equivalent, ways of > handling these scripts. For the sake of simplicity, this document > describes only the symbolic link method. However, it may not be > - assumed that this method is being used, and any manipulation of the > - various runlevel behaviours must be performed using `update-rc.d' as > - described below and not by manually installing symlinks. For > information on the implementation details of the other method, > implemented in the `file-rc' package, please refer to the > documentation of that package. > > There are at least two different, yet functionally equivalent, ways of > handling these scripts. For the sake of simplicity, this document > describes only the symbolic link method. However, it may not be > + assumed by maintainer scripts that this method is being used, and any > + automated manipulation of the various runlevel behaviours by maintainer > + scripts must be performed using `update-rc.d' as described > + below and not by manually installing or removing symlinks. For > information on the implementation details of the other method, > implemented in the `file-rc' package, please refer to the > documentation of that package. > > Julian > > -- > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg > Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/ > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Seth Arnold | http://www.willamette.edu/~sarnold/ Hate spam? See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ for help Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread! ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Seth Arnold | http://www.willamette.edu/~sarnold/ Hate spam? See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ for help Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
