Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roland My intension was to get rid of these undocumented.7 symlinks, because
Roland they are quite useless because of the following points:
Roland a) dpkg -L package shows that there is a man page, but there is
only
Rolandthis useless
Roland Rosenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But this doesn't solve the other problem: dpkg -L shows these symlinks
as real man pages. This is annoying at least for me...
dpkg is not a documentation browser, it is a package manager. It really
doesn't matter if dpkg -L shows symlinks or not,
Date:04 Jul 1999 12:26:55 +1000
To: Roland Rosenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
From:Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#39830: [PROPOSED]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
Roland Rosenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But
The debian menus currently currently only exist in
english, en da's niet goed (that's not good, Ott nem jó,
Tio malbonas).
Mi opinas kio estas bonan ideo...
On Jul 03, joost witteveen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When the translating of menus comes up, gnome/kde automatically also
come up as they already have translations. So, why not use those?
Well, for the above mentioned reasons: cross-package communication
is pour to say the least in debian,
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 06:44:57PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
This is principally the right way (according to FHS), but we cannot
recompile all packages now but we need a smooth way from one directory
to the other.
Why do we need a smooth way? Some packages (including many of mine at
On Sat, 03 Jul 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
This is principally the right way (according to FHS), but we
cannot recompile all packages now but we need a smooth way from
one directory to the other.
Why do we need a smooth way?
Because Debian is the distribution, where the user can
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Nonono, non-US is grouped into main, contrib and non-free, which are
divided into subsections. Basically you should consider ftp.debian.org
and nonus.debian.org as two complete archives, each seperated into
releases, sections and subsections.
Not subsections, actually.
I'm going through my old bug reports, and I remembered people
telling me /etc/rc.boot/ is obsolete. But I just went to look at
the new policy (I assume 3.0.0.0 is the latest) and it has the same
old stuff about /etc/rc.boot/ :
(snip)
3.3.4 Boot-time initialization
There is another directory,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ben Gertzfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going through my old bug reports, and I remembered people
telling me /etc/rc.boot/ is obsolete. But I just went to look at
the new policy (I assume 3.0.0.0 is the latest) and it has the same
old stuff about /etc/rc.boot/ :
Previously Richard Braakman wrote:
Not subsections, actually. The non-us packages are still in one directory
per section, and many just say non-US in their Section header.
Aren't those packaged broken then?
Wichert.
--
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.0.0
Severity: important
debian-policy 3.0.0.0 is now out and mentions to use
/usr/share/doc/package instead of /usr/doc/package.
This is principally the right way (according to FHS), but we cannot
recompile all packages now but we need a smooth way from one
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 02:27:01AM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
This is principally the right way (according to FHS), but we cannot
recompile all packages now but we need a smooth way from one directory
to the other.
Why do we need a smooth way? Some packages (including many of mine at the
13 matches
Mail list logo
