Gordon Matzigkeit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can somebody remind me again why it's so important to be FHS-compliant
on this issue? Why not just change the few /usr/share/doc packages
back to /usr/doc,
Because people who want to save disk space by mounting architecture
independant directories
Julian Gilbey wrote:
The dpkg-buildpackage program (and maybe autobuilders as well?) could
be modified so that after the .deb is built, before anything is signed
or similar, something like the following is done (within any necessary
fakeroot-type environment, of course):
This ignores the
On 21 Jul 1999, Philip Hands wrote:
Gordon Matzigkeit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can somebody remind me again why it's so important to be FHS-compliant
on this issue? Why not just change the few /usr/share/doc packages
back to /usr/doc,
Because people who want to save disk space by
Hi,
Joop == Joop Stakenborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joop In section 2.1 of the menu policy ( Preferred menu structure )
Joop under Apps:
Joop Hammradio should be spelled with one 'm'.
Done. Thanks.
manoj
--
Where the system is concerned, you're not allowed to ask Why?.
Hi,
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey Manoj Srivastava wrote:
dpkg may well have problems with the symlink, so any
packages still installing in /usr/doc/package could cause problems
with dpkg. Since the move is likely to take a long time, this grand
move-in-one-fell-swoop
Hi,
Chris == Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris == Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris Which leaves the user is used to '/usr/doc' objection, which is a
Chris *purely* aesthetic objection, not a technical one
You are
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:59:59PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
No reason but ease. If you, we, the ftpmasters want to do a
data/[main|contrib|non-free] on the same level as our current
[main|contrib|non-free] that's ok with me. That DOES
retitle 40706 [REJECTED 21/7/99] /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition
severity 40706 fixed
thanks
Hi,
Gord == Gordon Matzigkeit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gord Marcus's argument here is most compelling. It is not the
Gord present cost of Manoj's proposal that is prohibitive, it is the
Gord
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
retitle 40706 [REJECTED 21/7/99] /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition
Bug#40706: [AMENDMENT 17/7/99] /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition
Changed bug title.
severity 40706 fixed
Bug#40706: [REJECTED 21/7/99] /usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc transition
On Wed, Jul 21, 1999 at 11:33:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Bang!! That was the 4rth formal objection, and thus this
proposal dies. It can be revived as a general resolution, but I do
not have the enrgy to do that. We now have no amendment on the table
to move the /usr/doc
First of all, I should make it clear that in practice, this is
probably even *less* important than the previous technical objection.
But it is, still, a *technical* problem, however minor.
On Thu, Jul 22, 1999 at 04:08:26PM +1000, you wrote:
Perhaps someone would like to upload a .deb that does nothing more than
maintain symlinks?
Something as simple as having a /etc/cron.daily script that does:
[ -d /usr/doc ] || exit 0
cd /usr/share/doc
for dir in *;
On Thu, Jul 22, 1999 at 07:57:31AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 1999 at 04:08:26PM +1000, you wrote:
Perhaps someone would like to upload a .deb that does nothing more than
maintain symlinks?
Something as simple as having a /etc/cron.daily script that does:
[ -d
Just one question, however: Should we keep the same sections? Data will
surely have a different repartition of contains than main and maybe will
should think about the way we'll place things before they get too big
to move around.
Probably... I just don't want to make it part of the
14 matches
Mail list logo
