Re: Bug#154142: dhcp-client conflicts
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 08:59:12PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 12:48:43PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: Suppose that no common interface is provided: if etherconf doesn't know how to invoke udhcpc, then having udhcpc provide dhcp-client will break etherconf's DHCP support. That's etherconf's problem and not a reason to object to a dhcp-client virtual package. Then you've not got a very useful virtual package - things wanting to use the virtual package still need to go through and support every DHCP client individually only now they won't be expressing that clearly in their dependancies. If you can't depend on dhcp-client and know that you'll be able to do something constructive with the package that satisfies that dependancy then what's the point? I assume we don't want to use the packages to conflict. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rewriting policy soonish if poss.
I'd like to rewrite policy soonish. I've been talking about it for ages, but life has been *so* busy I'm at an awesome summer camp right now as a mentor, and that's a 24/7 job, so it'll be a few weeks yet. Primary question right now: I know that Manoj has been talking about moving to the DocBook DTD for the next version of policy. What are people's experiences with it? How does it compare to the DebianDoc DTD for what we are likely to want to do? Could we easily create a rationale tag that is selectively (or even non-selectively) processed? Love to hear people's thoughts on the matter. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London website: http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jdg/ Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/ Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rewriting policy soonish if poss.
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote: I know that Manoj has been talking about moving to the DocBook DTD for the next version of policy. What are people's experiences with it? I use DocBook for all documents and manpages now and it works great. How does it compare to the DebianDoc DTD for what we are likely to want to do? Could we easily create a rationale tag that is selectively (or even non-selectively) processed? I don't see why not. You can create your own stylesheet and add a rational thing in there, or use something like XSLT to add customized tags in your document and convert them into proper docbook when needed. Wichert. -- _ /[EMAIL PROTECTED] This space intentionally left occupied \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[epg@progeny.com: Bug#154142: dhcp-client conflicts]
- Forwarded message from Eric Gillespie [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Eric Gillespie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bug#154142: dhcp-client conflicts Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:05:09 -0500 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: nmh/1.0.4+dev (i386-unknown-netbsdelf1.5ZA) Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Suppose that no common interface is provided: if etherconf doesn't know how to invoke udhcpc, then having udhcpc provide dhcp-client will break etherconf's DHCP support. Etherconf never invokes anything other than ifup and ifdown. It's ifup that has the smarts. I know it already handles dhcp-client and pump; i think (but may be wrong) that Branden has seen it work with udhcpc. -- Eric Gillespie * [EMAIL PROTECTED] Software Developer Progeny Linux Systems - http://progeny.com/ When everyone has to reinvent the wheel, many people invent square wheels. - End forwarded message - -- Branden Robinson | GPG signed/encrypted mail welcome [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1024D/9C0BCBFB Consultant| D5F6 D4C9 E25B 3D37 068C Progeny Linux Systems | 72E8 0F42 191A 9C0B CBFB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rewriting policy soonish if poss.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 08:40:13AM -0600, Julian Gilbey wrote: I know that Manoj has been talking about moving to the DocBook DTD for the next version of policy. What are people's experiences with it? How does it compare to the DebianDoc DTD for what we are likely to want to do? Could we easily create a rationale tag that is selectively (or even non-selectively) processed? I would rather recommend using the existing Note tag with a Role=rationale attribute. Love to hear people's thoughts on the matter. I think converting the policy to DocBook is the right way to go. - Sebastian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#154142: dhcp-client conflicts
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 10:44:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 08:29:22AM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 10:05:09AM -0500, Eric Gillespie wrote: Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Suppose that no common interface is provided: if etherconf doesn't know how to invoke udhcpc, then having udhcpc provide dhcp-client will break etherconf's DHCP support. Etherconf never invokes anything other than ifup and ifdown. It's ifup that has the smarts. I know it already handles dhcp-client and pump; i think (but may be wrong) that Branden has seen it work with udhcpc. In that case I withdraw my objections. Please tell that to debian-policy; better yet, second my request for a dhcp-client virtual package. OK, I second Branden's request. Matt pgpLbF7GVIi3x.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [epg@progeny.com: Bug#154142: dhcp-client conflicts]
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 10:21:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Etherconf never invokes anything other than ifup and ifdown. It's ifup that has the smarts. I know it already handles dhcp-client and pump; i think (but may be wrong) that Branden has seen it work with udhcpc. So what you're saying is that the standard interface should be that provided by ifup and ifdown. There's nothing particularly wrong with that - it's just that it needs to be know that that's how things work. Perhaps some sort of interface description ought to be added to the virtual packages list in policy? -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
