Re: manpage for GNU utilities?

1998-02-25 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, Rob == Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rob What I would like to see considered for policy (because I'm Rob lazy), is that for packages that only have info pages, in lieu of Rob writing manpages (which may or may not actually happen), we have Rob a manpage info-documented.1.gz that says

Re: Clarification of Policy and Packaging manuals requested

1998-02-25 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, Rob == Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rob Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think I disagree. Letting developers who can't write shell scripts can in no way be in the interests of the project, one of whose goals is *excellence*. Rob Sure it can. It depends on what

Re: policy violation and bug reports. - some resolution?

1998-02-25 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, Marcus == Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marcus On Mon, Feb 23, 1998 at 09:09:07AM -0500, Branden Robinson Marcus wrote: So finally, here's my proposed solution: xtrs should install two zero-length files: /usr/lib/xtrs/model1rom.bin /usr/lib/xtrs/model3rom.bin and flag

Re: lintian reports relative/absolute symlinks

1998-02-25 Thread Zed Pobre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote: I agree that the policy should be clarified. In short: Symbolic links _within_ a top level directory should be relative, symbolic links _between_ top level directories should be absolute. Examples how things

Re: Clarification of Policy and Packaging manuals requested

1998-02-25 Thread Zed Pobre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Joey Hess wrote: The problem with this that have came up during this discussion was that some packages have files like this, that are a few MB in size (ie, the lambdamoo database, the dosemu hdimage). These files are obviously way to big

Re: Clarification of Policy and Packaging manuals requested

1998-02-25 Thread Richard Braakman
Joey Hess wrote: The problem with this that have came up during this discussion was that some packages have files like this, that are a few MB in size (ie, the lambdamoo database, the dosemu hdimage). These files are obviously way to big to be generated by the postinst. Manoj made several

Re: Clarification of Policy and Packaging manuals requested

1998-02-25 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, Could I get an interpretaion of the policy on this message, point by point? (I mean that. I have put thought into these questions, I merely ask for the courtesy of some thought in the responses). Please pardon the redundancy, I think I feel strongly on this issue.

Re: policy violation and bug reports. - some resolution?

1998-02-25 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, I do not think that packages should be putting conffiles in user home directories, even if the user is root. So far, the files in root have been 2 or 3 lines long; I do not see why they should be longer, but even longer files in .toot/,bash* could be created in the postinst

Re: Q: Location of copyrighted ROM images for emulator packages?

1998-02-25 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, [moving this to debian-policy] I just do not think packages should eb putting conffiles into user dorectories at any other time than initial install. And /root is close to being /home/root, except that /root has to be on the root file system. I think files in

Re: Clarification of Policy and Packaging manuals requested

1998-02-25 Thread Guy Maor
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Zed Pobre wrote: Shar-utils. Or perl doing uuencode. This leaves you with a huge postinst file (probably 2x the size of the actual file it generates), sitting in /var/lib/dpkg/info/. IMHO, worse than just installing a copy of the file into /usr/lib/

Re: propsal: all daemons should chdir / on startup

1998-02-25 Thread Guy Maor
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've noticed what seems to be a common problem lately: daemons that do not chdir / on startup. The problem is, if you mount a debina cd on /mnt, cd to /mnt, install some daemons, then /mnt is always busy after that and cannot be unmounted. The solution is

Re: Clarification of Policy and Packaging manuals requested

1998-02-25 Thread Joey Hess
Guy Maor wrote: This leaves you with a huge postinst file (probably 2x the size of the actual file it generates), sitting in /var/lib/dpkg/info/. IMHO, worse than just installing a copy of the file into /usr/lib/ gzip + uuencode. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/debian/build/lambdacore-02feb97ls -l

Re: policy violation and bug reports. - some resolution?

1998-02-25 Thread Santiago Vila
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 24 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: There is no need for conffiles in /root; I'd be happy to provide patches to the postinst if the maintainer feels unsure about coding it. I mostly agree. Current base-files_1.7.postinst now says: #!/bin/sh

Re: policy violation and bug reports. - some resolution?

1998-02-25 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, Not everything that should be fixed is a policy violation (though I believe we should consider conffiles in user dirctories a no-no in policy). Why should a user (even root) have *.dpk-dist cluttering up what should be their domain (it is their home directory, after all).

Re: policy violation and bug reports. - some resolution?

1998-02-25 Thread Santiago Vila
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 25 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: the default files are puerile [...] If you must have these files to copy into /root, keep them in /usr/lib/basefiles (which is not in the root partition) [...] Mmm, should I create a subdirectory in /usr/lib

Re: policy violation and bug reports. - some resolution?

1998-02-25 Thread Santiago Vila
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Joey Hess wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: Compared to that, the default files are puerile. It is annoying to have little control over my home directory as root, and b) have to delete those files over and over again since they

Re: policy violation and bug reports. - some resolution?

1998-02-25 Thread Joey Hess
Santiago Vila wrote: Anyway, I think this is a bug in dpkg (not asking about removed conffiles) and I don't think it is right to make a program to benefit from bugs in other programs... I've always hated this behavoir, but it's my understanding it's intentional (a feature, not a bug ;-). --

Re: policy violation and bug reports. - some resolution?

1998-02-25 Thread James Troup
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyway, I think this is a bug in dpkg (not asking about removed conffiles) and I don't think it is right to make a program to benefit from bugs in other programs... I've always hated this behavoir, but it's my understanding it's intentional (a

Re: policy violation and bug reports. - some resolution?

1998-02-25 Thread Christian Schwarz
On 25 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: [snip] I would propose that no package keep files in user home directories as a policy. This is not hard to do, and it would allow the user full control over their home directory, which is a right we should respect. Right. I'm wondering why we

Re: Clarification of Policy and Packaging manuals requested

1998-02-25 Thread Christian Schwarz
On 24 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, Could I get an interpretaion of the policy on this message, point by point? (I mean that. I have put thought into these questions, I merely ask for the courtesy of some thought in the responses). Please pardon the redundancy, I

Re: manpage for GNU utilities?

1998-02-25 Thread Nicolás Lichtmaier
What I would like to see considered for policy (because I'm lazy), is that for packages that only have info pages, in lieu of writing manpages (which may or may not actually happen), we have a manpage info-documented.1.gz that says more or less The documentation for package foo is

Re: manpage for GNU utilities?

1998-02-25 Thread Adam P. Harris
[You (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?=)] [Rob Browning] What I would like to see considered for policy (because I'm lazy), is that for packages that only have info pages, in lieu of writing manpages (which may or may not actually happen), we have a manpage info-documented.1.gz that says