In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+The files tt/var/run/utmp/tt, tt/var/log/wtmp/tt and
+tt/var/log/lastlog/tt should be installed writeable by group
+utmp. Programs who need to modify those files should be installed
+install
As I wrote some days ago on debian-devel, I'm packaging ding a
Tcl/Tk program for translating words. The program is a flexible
frontend agrep/egrep which acts on some kind of translation
dictionary. A translation dictionary is a file with one word or phrase
per line with a separator between the
Previously Joey Hess wrote:
Would it make sense for any packages that use the new permissions scheme
make sure they have proper perms in the postinst?
I think letting base-files fix the permissions and letting other
packages Depend on a recent base-files version would be a better
solution. (or
* JL = Jim Lynch
JL I'm afraid, that if it were made illegal to mention non-free
JL things in the expository-but-non-functional parts of debian
JL instalations, people might lose sight of important histories such
JL as in the above exsamp;e.
You have a good point.
What I was trying to
* MS = Manoj Srivastava
MS If only it were as simple as that. This issue has been brought up
MS on the lists, and, IIRC, it was quite controversial.
It is controversial indeed, does this also mean we can't try and have
it decided?
DGMS My vote is for free packages not being allowed to
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have come to realize that there may be a better method of tracking
the progress of proposals in the BTS.
a) Pre discussion period, an idea is
floated, and kicked around and wishlist bug, titled [PROPOSAL]
polished for a bit
b)
Hi,
DGMS == Davide G M Salvetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DGMS But I'm really only suggesting that this behavior should be avoided at
DGMS all if possible, I don't aim to have it policy.
DGMS What I do think should be policy is that main (which includes non-US
DGMS free software) should
Hi,
DGMS == Davide G M Salvetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DGMS * MS = Manoj Srivastava
DGMS It is controversial indeed, does this also mean we can't try and have
DGMS it decided?
Proabably this is not the right forum for that. The policy
process is a light weight process meant
On debian-policy, Davide G. M. Salvetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patent restriction does not imply freedom restriction: they are two
very different matters. In other words, gimp-non-free is misnamed,
and (software license permitting) it should go directly to
non-US/main, which is main (i.e.,
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.1.0
Severity: normal
A recent report on the debian-cd list indicates that space on the
potato source CDs is very tight (around 10 MB of slack). We are
virtually certain to exceed this space limitation (and thus enter the
realm of needing at least 3 source
On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 02:02:35PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
I further propose that the use of bzip2 be mandatory for newly uploaded
source files
Upstream doesn't always provide .tar.bz2 packages.
Marcelo
On Jun 10, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 02:02:35PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
I further propose that the use of bzip2 be mandatory for newly uploaded
source files
Upstream doesn't always provide .tar.bz2 packages.
(zcat upstream.orig.tar.gz | bzip2
On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 02:02:35PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.1.0
Severity: normal
A recent report on the debian-cd list indicates that space on the
potato source CDs is very tight (around 10 MB of slack). We are
virtually certain to exceed this space
On policy, Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Therefore, I propose that we permit the use of bzip2 to compress
source package files (.orig.tar and .diff for most packages, .tar for
native packages). I further propose that the use of bzip2 be
mandatory for newly uploaded source files, and
14 matches
Mail list logo
