On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 01:25:50PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 01:58:41AM +0000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:39:44PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:31:52PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> &g
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:39:44PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:31:52PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Lintian has a tag:
> > Tag: symlink-has-too-many-up-segments
> > Severity: serious
> + Symbolic links must not traverse above the root directory.
This is
On 16 November 2014 23:28, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> I've drafted up a document that I think matches reality on how init
> systems work in Debian. It's at:
>
> https://github.com/ajtowns/debian-init-policy
>
> and in (hopefully) easy-to-read pdf f
seful for the third section. There might be some bits where
the rationale's not clear too.
I figure I'll post a patch to get this added to -policy towards the end of
the week; comments before then appreciated. Either on this list or as
issues (or pull requests!) in github would be best, I guess.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 04:25:28PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:16:29AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> >> Speaking as a human being, I would suggest that Debian policy should be
> >> that all "phoning home" MUST be enabled explicitly, and MUST be turned
> >> off b
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 05:38:50PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > We have:
> > required/essential -- stuff that can't be removed: libc, dpkg, etc
> > important -- the rest of base, stuff necessary to bootstrap and
> > recover a usable and useful system
> I have to admi
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:03:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Frankly, I suggest we look at the list of Unix commands as
> specified by the SUS -- which can also be seen at:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unix_programs
> So -- how many of the standard unix commands
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 05:09:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:34:10 -0800, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I use "time" in benchmarking scripts.
> I do not find the built in time to be a substitute for the good
> old fashioned time command. Observe:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 06:31:50PM +0100, Lo?c Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Regardless, even requiring debian/rules to be a makefile doesn't
> > > actually do much, because someone could do something like:
> > > .DEFAULT:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:26:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I'm not sure if there's any point to continuing to try to make sure
> > that nothing >= optional conflicts with anything else >= optional.
> Hmm. Can you elaborate on this, please? Is it because it is too
> hard to achi
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:42:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It also includes, but afaics, probably doesn't need to (anymore):
> > ispell, dictionaries-common, iamerican, ibritish, wamerican
> > m4, texinfo (
Kind of reviving an old thread, but anyway:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 07:12:35PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> I believe it to be one of the more important bits of a standard Unix
> *desktop* installation - but this just reminds me of the fact that I'm
> quite uncomfortable with keeping a s
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 01:42:03PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I also could have sworn that we recently tightened this requirement,
> > but I can find no mention of that in changelog with some quick
> > searches. Am I just imagining things?
> It was ti
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:33:51PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> + Packages which use the Debian Configuration management
> + specification must allow for translation of their messages
> + by using a gettext-based system such as the one provided by
> + the po-deb
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 12:58:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If a csh script does not start
> with /bin/csh (or name some specific csh implementation; maybe there's an
> opportunity for wording improvement) or doesn't depend on c-shell, it's
> broken and won't work on a Debian system. That soun
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 10:01:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The technical committee charter and the policy process both adopt
> > the principle that the people making the change [..] only act in an
> > editorial capacity -- reviewing changes and committing them
> > appropriately, but not
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:20:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The only normative words are MUST, SHOULD, MAY, and
> RECOMMENDED. I am considering using upper case where we expect
> conformance.
Didn't the definitions of MUST/SHOULD/MAY get removed in your patch though?
Cheers,
aj
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:27:47PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Given that there is no delegated power to change the technical
> policy, I can only see that the technical policy may be changed by a
> GR, or by the technical committee. 6. Technical committee
I think you're mistaken, a
o help maintain
policy is encouraged and welcome to do so, following the guidelines in
policy-process for proposing and uploading changes.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns
Debian Project Leader
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:23:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> (Note: sorry about my earlier header mixup. This thread is on the
> wrong list so I'm crossposting this reply to -project and -policy and
> have set Reply-To to point to -policy. I will also quote more of
> Stefano's message than woul
.
Which is to say, just because dpkg doesn't check some condition, it
doesn't mean that other packages will continue working if you violate it.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed
B instead of A.
Now let's consider what happens if they've already installed the system,
with A, and hence E and F. The run dselect, or apt-get, or even dpkg, and
install B, remove A and are left with B, E and F.
If that's not what's desired, your dependencies are wrong.
ig deal.
I'd be more inclined to fix the tools, personally, or to say that
"within Debian, we'll translate upstream colons to something else"
than removing the support from dpkg or changing its meaning.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.hu
- Forwarded message from Christopher Yeoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Christopher Yeoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FHS 2.3 beta
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:30:40 +1000
To: Lsb-Discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
debian-lsb@lists.debian.org
X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under Emacs 21.3.2
A beta relea
cy shouldn't
be RC, and the RC policy not being up to date enough when it counts,
and all.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
Am I getting paid for this?''
pgpUIkasUDfTj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
policy to have documentation for all programs? Does Debian
require all programs to have documentation?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind
t people on the head with policy, the only
merit it has *at all* is as a compendium of well thought out advice to
package maintainers about how to do their work. That is the *precise*
definition of "best practices" documents.
By contrast, sarge_rc_policy is a list of requirements, and is
implications, mostly from the old
packaging manual.
That leaves (2) though, which really includes things like transition
documents, and subproject policies, and most of the current debian-policy
document.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
ying patches
to add the features instead.
Cheers,
/\_
aj <-- wearing Release Manager hat
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
ach in fakeroot is user
> autovivification (to bottow a term from perl) on chown.
Or getpwnam(), maybe? How that'd mix in with getpwent() might be
confusing.
Debian packages aren't necessarily built under fakeroot, though, so this
can't necessarily be relied on.
Cheers,
aj
--
that url doesn't start with
"-", or (b) using wrapper scripts so "lynx-browser" invokes 'lynx --
"$1"', eg, or (c) changing the execl line to:
execl(browser, browser, "--", url, NULL);
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PR
stinst, you ask "how many uids may i reserve?" with a
default answer of (say) 5000, and add that to
/etc/reserved-uids with some sort of update-reserved-uids
tool
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.hum
t very well.
Couldn't update-menus dump some pre-scaled icons into /var or /usr somewhere
for such window managers?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
ably won't be.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified
lt if we do it right and send in patches.
Uh, no, the LSB doesn't standardise every library that is shipped by every
distribution other than Debian.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself.
here the gain outweighs the drawback.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified a
dynamic versions, of all the libraries they use, bar a few. Having
the .a's available for that may be useful.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anth
s mainly meant to be all the information you
should need to work out whether you want to install a package or not:
description, what other packages you need, a file name to download,
etc. A "More-Info-URL:" field might make sense here in that it'd let
you find out more about the package, se
mlinks from /usr might make life a bit easier for some maintainers who
are aghast at the thought of rewriting upstream to use /etc natively.
*cough*143825*cough*
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself.
xecutable, if appropriate), that
is mode 644 or 755.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
make it possible to mount /usr read-
only. Everything that once went into /usr that is written to during
system operation (as opposed to installation and software maintenance)
must be in /var.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~
t.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
to be shared amongst machines,
it's simply expected that which files get shared and how is more
complicated than for /usr, since they're much more site-specific.
For reference,
$ find /usr \! -perm -004
$
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.o
sh version Y (>X) which does not provide /bin/sh in the .deb
> is, in some way, a step backwards as far as bootstrapping is concerned.
It's no big deal either way.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
s a problem that if there's a new required package then
it has to fail to break any essential packages when you start unpacking
and installing it. Mostly that can be handled by pre-depends: (for new
libraries that essential packages need) and replaces: (for splitting
essential packages), I
se debconf.)
The aim was to drop exim from base entirely to make the postfix and qmail
types all happy. We missed that for woody, but we ought to be able to do it
for sarge.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for a
t; As of today, is it still true that
> "dpkg will not prevent upgrading of other packages while an essential
> package is in an unconfigured state"? Why should dpkg unconfigure an
> essential package to begin with?
apt-get will try to avoid it, dpkg won't. dpkg treats
also has the benefit of the results
matching your intuition (ie, inetd starts, and nothing happens).
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
e, the policy process failing as you watch!
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
pgpa7xN7YvNv4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
oving the config file would do any
good could get their machine DoS'ed off the .net thanks to a handful of
untracable spoofed packets. Because, hey, personal whims, and the letter
of policy are what matters, not the needs of our userbase, right?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECT
ny times have you
found base-passwd recreating /etc/passwd and /etc/group a nuisance? Never?
Funny that.
Why the fuck do we have to have a debate about this?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself.
)
update-cgi --enable /usr/lib/cgi-bin/foo
(which looks at the note, and recreates the symlink if
appropriate)
update-cgi --remove /usr/lib/cgi-bin/foo
(which just removes the symlink)
at appropriate places in the *rm scripts.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony T
systems that happen to be operated through CGI scripts --
linuxconf or similar things do that, don't they? I'm not really seeing any
cases where that's a nuisance to deal with, but I don't use such things,
so maybe that's where I'm missing something?
Cheers,
aj
--
A
was worthwhile.
Being able to easily disable a couple of prepackaged CGI scripts seems
like a common enough behaviour to optimise for.
Or maybe not, of course.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
pgpOPMe1nVSfq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ewhat interested in fixing the "unwanted services becoming
available, and possibly posing a remote security risk just 'cause I
installed some package to look at some files" problem, which I think
the above suggestion might do)
I'm assuming, of course, that webservers can c
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 11:46:59AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> These modifications to the debconf spec simply make it conform to the
> reality of how some things work now. This is part of an effort to make
> debconf and cdebconf better substitutes for each other.
Seconded.
Cheers,
aj
--
Sure it should: ``further documentation may be found in
/usr/share/doc/foo''. Better would probably be to say "A package should
not require the existance of any files in /usr/share/doc to run." Which
is pretty much repeating yourself, if that matters.
Cheers,
aj
--
Antho
sn't any point to all this. How
pretty names are isn't *that* important. If they were, we'd've changed
"/etc" to "/conf" and so on years ago.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't spea
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 01:14:17PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [020907 13:11]:
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:50:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > As it was talked in Debconf2, we would be better off if we rename
ratuitous.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
pgphy9BNwBVa2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
to handle some of it, but working
differentiating between dfsg-free/non-free is hard enough, without adding
a non-free-but-okay-for-crypto-export category too.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself
make a practice of registering our
script names with LANANA as we create them in future, or start using
/etc/init.d/debian.org-foo. :-/
I'm not sure which of these would've been what was discussed at debconf,
but they've all been adequately fixed, as far as I'm aware.
Cheer
nice() issue, we'll be aiming to
get an official compliance statement done so as to obtain the available
bragging rights.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
pgpqNjGlRpipa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ke the [ at the start of the Subject line, for some reason.
It thinks space, : and [ all look alike, apparently, and drops it when
getting rid of "Bug123456:". Been that way forever, afaict, or at least
since September '99. Might be fixed now.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMA
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 12:06:55AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:08:03 +1000,
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Version number comparison is checked with 'dpkg --compare-versions', and
> > the format is checked automatically by various tools. I'v
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:33:44AM -0600, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:13:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > __Debian Standards Document__
> > dpkg:
> >* version format
> >* maintainer scripts are run when and under what circu
ng but "dpkg-buildpackage"
actually needs to care that much.
> I guess I'm mostly with you on this one now.
Cool.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred
s it at
least clear what I'm saying, and that for any given desirable bit of
policy, there's some way of including it?
Cheers,
aj
(Comparing the BPP/DSD dichotomy with the policy/packaging-manual split
is left as an exercise to the reader...)
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> &
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 10:55:14PM -0600, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 01:31:26AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 08:40:13AM -0600, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > I'd like to rewrite policy soonish.
> > Into what, exactly?
>
tely
automatically, and in many cases won't even make it into the archive.
Many of the BPP guidelines will be able to be checked by lintian/linda
too hopefully, at best only a few of them are worth RC bugs, though.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.
;t think that's a showstopper, personally.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
pgpJPLMS7GUdJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Usually dselect will suggest to the user that they select the package
with the most `fundamental' class (eg, it will prefer Base packages to
Optional ones), or the one that they `most wanted' to select in some
sense.
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://az
r or more powerful than other developers.
Beyond _all_ other things, this is the major problem with the serious
severity and release-critical bugs (and debian-policy@) at the moment.
And as much as I'd like to be able to say it's better to have -policy be
"better and more powerful
script POSIX-compliant
> b) make the script a #!/bin/bash script
> c) do neither and complain
d) make the script work on ash, so people can use ash as /bin/sh and
have it use a little less memory or run a little quicker.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure
7;t require signficant changes to current
practice, by definition. As such, it doesn't make sense to use that as
an argument about why we should change current practice.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for any
method calls : 0:02.27
>
> (On a TM5800 with the cpu set to run at 333 to 533 mhz.)
Any chance of a rerun with posh (sources are in queue/new and readable)
or pdksh?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak fo
sh as /bin/sh on a Debian system.
(3) Having Debian's /bin/sh scripts work on
SUSv3-with-no-extensions makes them more portable, which can
help admins of random other Unix systems. However, not all
SUSv3 scripts will work on Debian (due to the ec
al',
> | as in the case of `bash').
> If this were not a must, then anyone could make a #!/bin/sh script that
> would not run on bash, and it would not be a valid bug.
If it were a should, not a must, they would file a normal bug, and it'd
get fixed. I'm not seeing th
re
not the means by which we make Debian excellent. Release-critical bugs are
the way we make sure Debian doesn't completely and utterly suck. It's the
way we make sure you can install a Debian system, put it on the Internet,
and still have control over it five minutes later. They'r
much we want to change that.
> > That's nice. In future, before filing bugs against a bunch of packages
> > for something you think's a policy violation, gain a consensus on -devel
> > about it first. It's a simple rule, and it prevents a lot of annoyance.
> I
How about we add "I'm not such an idiot to break my packages just because
I get in an argument with aj?" to the new-maintainer P&P check?
> Scenario A: Anthony Towns puts kill -s KILL $pid in preinst of
> netkit-inetd. Script works on all POSIX-compliant shells.
>
>
he link between policy and
release-criticalness everytime there's any sort of thread on -policy
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
-- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
pgpf27aWzNWPw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 08:13:19AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 17-Jun-02, 21:51 (CDT), Anthony Towns wrote:
> > "It seems sloppy" is a pretty poor argument for moving every binary not
> > specifically mentioned in the FHS into /usr and gratuitously breaking
&g
important than blind adherance to
the standard du jour.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
-- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
pgpDpz4GFr3Wh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
f, as a sysadmin, you
don't ever want that to happen, you should remove /usr/local/{bin,sbin}
(and /opt/bin and whatever else) from your PATH before running
dpkg. That's not overly onerous.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/
gratuitously breaking
any scripts that needed them where they are.
Are you sloppy when you exercise your judgement about your packages? Why
would you expect everyone else to be?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/&
tools, or /bin/ip from iproute for example.
The "required" priority is meant to be "essential + dependencies",
but isn't quite, for reference.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak fo
On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 07:31:32PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 11:53:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 01:48:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Documentation good. Ad hockery bad.
> > That's your opinion, not
On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 01:48:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 03:16:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 01:17:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > So why waste everyone's time discussing it rather than just us
nthony, that means you.
Ah, yes, clearly your lack of satisfaction with things means others should
be proactive in providing for your happiness.
If you have a problem with some particular program being in /bin instead
of /usr/bin or vice-versa, discuss it with the maintainer and provide a
conv
Manual's?
People like Herbert's judgement is what was used to write the policy
manual.
> I'm CCing debian-policy as a means of RFD. I invite your participation
> if you have something to contribute beyond "don't do that, then."
Sometimes "so don
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:42:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> Anthony> There is _absolutely_ no call for other packaging tools, and
> Anthony> absolutely _no_ need for a standard to make this easy or
> Yeah,
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:45:33AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> >> *Sigh*. Let me see if I can dot the i's and cross the t's. A
> >> package should be buildable using the bits mentioned in policy. Any
>
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:29:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> Anthony> The documentation should be found wherever the dpkg
> Anthony> maintainers want it, not wherever the -policy maintainers
> Anthony> thi
-project Bcc'ed only.
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 11:17:28PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 04:02:47AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:19:54PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > > > Then each section could either have t
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 05:19:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> Anthony> The real question is whether maintainers are meant to build
> Anthony> using the features of dpkg, or the ones listed in
> *Sigh*. Let me
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 08:02:04PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 07:17:12PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > Debian development is asynchronous.
> > That's a nice idea in theory.
> It just to be tr
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:02:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If the dpkg authors would like to hand off some of their design decisions
> > to -policy on a generalised basis, I'm sure they'd say so.
y "See, this is
> not considered an RC bug!"?
Bug submitters already look at "another document". That document will
merely change from being the entirety of policy, to something a fair
bit shorter and a fair bit more on-point.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
-- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
pgpPKnPlErWu0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:02:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I'm concerned about this because when I tried passing over
> > "release-critical policy issues" to the policy group, it didn't work
1 - 100 of 539 matches
Mail list logo
