Hallo Mark,
Am 2002-01-11 um 02:00 schriebst du:
I'm sorry to keep putting you guys through this, but could someone check
over the new packages. I've updated from 4.5.15 to 4.5.17, which included
an update to the .edu name servers.
http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois
Yep, ok with me
I want to suggest that the following become policy:
No new packages are accepted that require non-packaged prerequisites.
i.e. using rpm which was raised on cygwin@ recently,
until db 3.2 is packaged and maintained by 'someone', rpm is not
acceptable as a package.
Thoughts?
Rob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Collins
I want to suggest that the following become policy:
No new packages are accepted that require non-packaged prerequisites.
i.e. using rpm which was raised on cygwin@ recently,
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 04:43:28AM -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Collins
I want to suggest that the following become policy:
No new packages are accepted that require non-packaged
Robert,
2002-01-11 11:35:51, du schriebst:
I want to suggest that the following become policy:
No new packages are accepted that require non-packaged prerequisites.
[...]
Thoughts?
Runtime only prerequisites?
e.g. in rpm-4 there are db sources included in the source package which
are
===
- Original Message -
From: Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
postgreSQL needs cygipc.
Luckily it's not a *new* packahge :)
Yes! Actually it's postgreSQL and similar that concern me:
postgreSQL needs ipc, but ipc is not a package, and won't be unless the
cygwin IPC looks waaay
===
- Original Message -
From: Gareth Pearce [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This makes sense to me - however I was wondering to what extent.
1. no packages which have run-time dependencies on non-packaged.
Yes.
2. no packages which have Build time dependencies on non-packaged
during
'standard'
- Original Message -
From: Gerrit P. Haase [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Runtime only prerequisites?
Essentially. Complex build time would be a concern, but not as much of
one (depending on the reputation of the packager). (i.e. long time
contributor, low risk. New contributor, might package and
Stipe,
2002-01-11 14:45:15, du schriebst:
* changed $sysconfdir from /etc/httpd/conf to /etc/httpd,
as proposed by Geritt.
* changed $libexecdir from /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/apache,
as proposed by Chuck, Ernie and Corinna.
httpd apache ?
I would prefer to have it all the
* changed $sysconfdir from /etc/httpd/conf to /etc/httpd,
as proposed by Geritt.
* changed $libexecdir from /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/apache,
as proposed by Chuck, Ernie and Corinna.
httpd apache ?
I would prefer to have it all the same name:
`apache' like this:
#
- Original Message -
From: Stipe Tolj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since `httpd' is more general I would prefer `apache'
from these two layouts.
I disagree here! It's common style to have the protocoll name for /etc
and /var sub-directories.
httpd is not the protocol name. It's a hangover
11 matches
Mail list logo
