Bug#122931: debian-policy: Spelling consistency depend(e|a)ncies in policy 2.3.8.1
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 11:43:05PM -0500, John R. Daily wrote: As largely irrelevant data points, my 1955 edition of the Oxford Universal, the 2nd edition of the Random House unabridged, Webster's 3rd New International, and the 1952 New Century dictionaries concur that dependancy is legitimate. Webster's 2nd edition New International does not recognize it. What's the date on the latter dictionary? I'm willing to bet most modern lexicographers have adopted the quite sensible rule-of-thumb that no spelling based on a French etymology should be accepted when a Latin one is available instead. (/me casts his line and waits for a bite) -- G. Branden Robinson| When I die I want to go peacefully Debian GNU/Linux | in my sleep like my ol' Grand [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Dad...not screaming in terror like http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | his passengers. pgpggGQ4zDpYS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#122817: base-files: Please provide profile.d hook in /etc/profile
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:37:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: You are wrong here. Sample: - I want to provide a package with a lot of useful bash functions/aliases w/o changing any program Write scripts and put them in /usr/local/bin. ¿? Packages cannot place scripts in /usr/local/bin. It's against policy. - I want my users to have a given enviroment for *all* programs. /etc/environment Santiago is right about this. Yes, it frightens me to hear myself saying that. But why is flexibility such a frightening thing? And yes, it frightens me too :) Javi
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:19:23AM -0500, John R. Daily wrote: Possible reasons for mandating policy: insuring interoperability, consistency, functionality, and desire to be a fascist jerk. Why assume the latter when the first three are valid, and valuable to boot? Because the first three are better achieved by other methods, and don't need the threat of exclusion from the distribution to achieve. Why do we require things like shlibs, or listing dependencies, or using .deb files? Because each of those have actually been tried for ages and work. Debconf provides another layer of consistency that enables functionality that few, if any, other distributions can provide in a quality fashion. Yes, great, wonderful. Now spend some time talking with the maintainers you want to have use debconf and make sure it actually works for them. Sure, power corrupts, and should be used judiciously. But no matter how much Debian sucks[1], imagine how much more it would suck if there weren't reasonable standards by which developers were expected to abide? Now imagine how much more it would suck if all our developers, instead of being voluntarily committed to making Debian the best it can possibly be out of the goodness of their own hearts, were instead unwilling to do anything until some rulebook said they had to do it or else they'd be kicked out of the project. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it. C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue. -- Mike Hoye, see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Re: Bug#122817: base-files: Please provide profile.d hook in /etc/profile
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:11:06AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:37:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: You are wrong here. Sample: - I want to provide a package with a lot of useful bash functions/aliases w/o changing any program Write scripts and put them in /usr/local/bin. ¿? Packages cannot place scripts in /usr/local/bin. It's against policy. A package YOU make, used only on your own system, doesn't have to follow Debian Policy. -- G. Branden Robinson|If a man ate a pound of pasta and a Debian GNU/Linux |pound of antipasto, would they [EMAIL PROTECTED] |cancel out, leaving him still http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |hungry? -- Scott Adams pgplWY2sYzdWC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: ... If you want every package to use debconf, that's fine and wonderful. Go make a list of the ones that don't, write patches so that they will, file bugs so the maintainer knows about them, then have a friendly discussion with the maintainers to make sure that they're satisfied with the patches. Let me compare two cases: - a package has it's documentation in /usr/doc - the maintainer gets a patch how to change it - the maintainer refuses the patch I want to have the documentation in /usr/doc. - a package doesn't use debconf for interaction with the user while asking the user questions at installation time - the maintainer gets a patch how to change it - the maintainer refuses the patch I don't want to use debconf. I don't get the point why it's all right to send a RC bug report in the first case but not in the second case. Cheers, aj cu Adrian -- Get my GPG key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | gpg --import Fingerprint: B29C E71E FE19 6755 5C8A 84D4 99FC EA98 4F12 B400
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:16:15PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: - a package has it's documentation in /usr/doc - the maintainer gets a patch how to change it - the maintainer refuses the patch I want to have the documentation in /usr/doc. - a package doesn't use debconf for interaction with the user while asking the user questions at installation time - the maintainer gets a patch how to change it - the maintainer refuses the patch I don't want to use debconf. I don't get the point why it's all right to send a RC bug report in the first case but not in the second case. The point is people shouldn't be saying Oh, I don't want to do that for no reason whatsoever. And, indeed, they don't; they'll generally have a *reason* for doing so. The reason for the former being RC is that FHS compliance is RC and there's no technical reason for them to prefer /usr/doc over /usr/share/doc. And thanks to this stupid MUST thing in policy everyone's wasting their time trying to figure out how to force people to do things, instead of making sure that there's absolutely no reason why they wouldn't want to. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it. C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue. -- Mike Hoye, see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:22:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: And thanks to this stupid MUST thing in policy everyone's wasting their time trying to figure out how to force people to do things, instead of making sure that there's absolutely no reason why they wouldn't want to. Trouble is, when the maintainer really is being wierd there's not much you can do about it so people wind up wanting to find a big stick to use to try to get through to them. Assuming people are going to do the sensible thing doesn't always work. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. pgpfuvYeGFY0c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:02:25PM +, Mark Brown wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:22:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: And thanks to this stupid MUST thing in policy everyone's wasting their time trying to figure out how to force people to do things, instead of making sure that there's absolutely no reason why they wouldn't want to. Trouble is, when the maintainer really is being wierd there's not much you can do about it so people wind up wanting to find a big stick to use to try to get through to them. Sure there's something you can do: forward it on to -devel, try to make sure it's clear what (if anything) the maintainer and you think the issues are, and try to come to some sort of consensus about what should be done. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it. C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue. -- Mike Hoye, see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt pgpHxiBj2eN4h.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:41:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Sure there's something you can do: forward it on to -devel, try to make sure it's clear what (if anything) the maintainer and you think the issues are, and try to come to some sort of consensus about what should be done. Of course. Thing is that that's an awful lot of hassle and rather offputting so people still want that big stick that would save them grinding through it for stuff that really ought to be obvious. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. pgp5RsMrEs2FB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Monday, December 10, 2001 9:46 AM, Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course. Thing is that that's an awful lot of hassle and rather offputting so people still want that big stick that would save them grinding through it for stuff that really ought to be obvious. Do you not agree that because of the reasons already identified, particularly: * debconf is still relatively young * lets put our energies where they will be most productive that we should put this item on a too-be-revisited-at-[Year][Month][Date] list, and let the issue sleep. Best regards, Lloyd __ Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
Bug#122931: debian-policy: Spelling consistency depend(e|a)ncies in policy 2.3.8.1
(Taking this off-line.) Well, had you read through the note properly, you would have noticed that Webster's 3rd does recognize it, while the 2nd doesn't; it's a pretty safe bet that the 3rd came after the 2nd. :-) IIRC, the 2nd was proscriptive, and the 3rd descriptive, with many purists lamenting the change. -John
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 07:10:54AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you not agree that because of the reasons already identified, particularly: * debconf is still relatively young I'm talking about the general trend towards people wanting to put everything sensible in policy irrespective of how obvious it may seem, not this specific proposal. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. pgpfYNIxnkrZh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at Monday, December 10, 2001 10:33 AM, Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Do you not agree that because of the reasons already identified, particularly: * debconf is still relatively young I'm talking about the general trend towards people wanting to put everything sensible in policy irrespective of how obvious it may seem, not this specific proposal. I am pretty new to Debian, but from other exp. I hear where you are coming from... the challenge with more common sense in policy is the increase in noise to signal for most debians (users/developers). Common sense should win out when the information is presented on a per case basis -- if the sense is not so common, then sure, make it policy. Best regards, Lloyd __ Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
aj You don't need an excuse to not mandate something, you need a damn aj good reason to mandate, and a huge amount of current practice to aj support it. Is the reason given by OP not damn good enough? And is the overwhelming majority of interactive scripts that _do_ use debconf already not a huge enough amount? Just asking, -- Ian Zimmerman, Oakland, California, U.S.A. GPG: 433BA087 9C0F 194F 203A 63F7 B1B8 6E5A 8CA3 27DB 433B A087 In his own soul a man bears the source from which he draws all his sorrows and his joys. Sophocles.
Re: [vhost-base] Draft policy proposal
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 03:27:17AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Daniel Stone wrote: Oh, and also bear one thing in mind: the virtual host name (e.g. foobar in /var/vhosts/foobar) may not have any correlation to the hostname, domain, or whatever. So, please don't assume it does. /var is the wrong place for this. There is a push to move FHS to /srv but not specify what you should put in there which might be a better option. No, I think /srv is the wrong place, but I wont justify that reason, its just because I, the supreme web authority said so. Infact, the right place is /documentroot this will allow for standards compliance with the greatest number of other systems. /pathetic attempt at humor Thanks, Norbert pgpDj8fWXygax.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Mark Brown wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:22:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: And thanks to this stupid MUST thing in policy everyone's wasting their time trying to figure out how to force people to do things, instead of making sure that there's absolutely no reason why they wouldn't want to. Trouble is, when the maintainer really is being wierd there's not much you can do about it so people wind up wanting to find a big stick to use to try to get through to them. Assuming people are going to do the sensible thing doesn't always work. Inasmuch as that is true, we're doomed anyway, policy or no policy. Britton
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:56:51AM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote: aj You don't need an excuse to not mandate something, you need a damn aj good reason to mandate, and a huge amount of current practice to aj support it. Is the reason given by OP not damn good enough? No, not really. When we can actually support non-interactive installs and the like, then it'll be a good reason to make it a RC bug not so new packages don't break that feature; but until we can and do support it, it definitely should not be a RC bug not to. And is the overwhelming majority of interactive scripts that _do_ use debconf already not a huge enough amount? No, it's not current practice to use debconf when a bunch of important packages specifically don't use it. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it. C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue. -- Mike Hoye, see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 02:46:17PM +, Mark Brown wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:41:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Sure there's something you can do: forward it on to -devel, try to make sure it's clear what (if anything) the maintainer and you think the issues are, and try to come to some sort of consensus about what should be done. Of course. Thing is that that's an awful lot of hassle and rather offputting so people still want that big stick that would save them grinding through it for stuff that really ought to be obvious. ie, People aren't interested in doing any work themselves to help maintainers, they're just interested in ensuring other people put in the work to make sure whatever they want to do works, and making sure there's some way to punish everyone else if they don't do it I'm still mildly surprised that this sort of sentiment is considered reasonable by subscribers to this list, but I hope no one is shocked that I think it was a vast mistake to let people who hold that sort of sentiment having any influence over the RC-ness of bugs. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it. C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue. -- Mike Hoye, see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt pgp07SHIrE2fu.pgp Description: PGP signature
