Re: static user IDs

1999-09-19 Thread Brian May
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: >Please provide a rationale. Some of my packages need a static ID (64000 >is assigned, the only one assigned so far) because their spool could >need to be NFS shared. As the maintainer of diskless, I am curious: What packages need a ID that could be share

Processed: Bug#41547: Mark as accepted

1999-09-19 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 41547 normal Bug#41547: [PROPOSAL] Correct section 3.3 to take account of file-rc Severity set to `normal'. > retitle 41547 [ACCEPTED 1/9/99] Correct section 3.3 to take account of file-rc Bug#41547: [PROPOSAL] Correct section 3.3 to take acco

starting/stopping daemons in package scripts

1999-09-19 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
Hello, it looks as if we don't have good guidelines what to do about running daemons when installing packages, or I missed them when glancing at the policy and packaging manual. I think it should be specified in the packaging manual when daemons should be stopped, started, restarted, reloaded et

Re: On Policy Compliance (was Re: static user IDs)

1999-09-19 Thread Raul Miller
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 12:45:10AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > My point is simply that changing policy does not translate into making > things happen by fiat. Perhaps you missed the entire point of my > mail, because it seems like we agree with each other. Actually... rereading your original p

Re: On Policy Compliance (was Re: static user IDs)

1999-09-19 Thread Raul Miller
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 12:45:10AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > My point is simply that changing policy does not translate into making > things happen by fiat. Perhaps you missed the entire point of my > mail, because it seems like we agree with each other. *blush* yeah. -- Raul

Bug#45406: PROPOSAL] Config files must have manpages

1999-09-19 Thread Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 10:14:09AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > I have no idea offhand. I just know it's created by inittex and it > doesn't matter if I tell dpkg to replace mine or not, it will always be > regenerated by initex. Uh... initex IIRC generates only .fmt files which should not be co

Bug#45406: PROPOSAL] Config files must have manpages

1999-09-19 Thread Joseph Carter
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 11:59:27AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > > > Should be add `intended for direct user modification'? Are there > > > configfiles that are `internal' and should be allowed to remain > > > undocumented? > > > > Yes there are some such config files. I believe tetex h

Bug#45406: PROPOSAL] Config files must have manpages

1999-09-19 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 06:26:53PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > > Should be add `intended for direct user modification'? Are there > > configfiles that are `internal' and should be allowed to remain > > undocumented? > > Yes there are some such config files. I believe tetex has one, for > examp

Re: static user IDs

1999-09-19 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Sep 19, Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think the practice of using static IDs should be deprecated (and >packages doing it should get lintian warnings..) I disagree with banning Please provide a rationale. Some of my packages need a static ID (64000 is assigned, the only one assi

Bug#45406: PROPOSAL] Config files must have manpages

1999-09-19 Thread Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 06:26:53PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 02:32:09PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote: > > Should be add `intended for direct user modification'? Are there > > configfiles that are `internal' and should be allowed to remain > > undocumented? > > Yes t

Re: On Policy Compliance (was Re: static user IDs)

1999-09-19 Thread Chris Lawrence
On Sep 19, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Sep 18, Joseph Carter wrote: > > > It's a problem if there's no transition to speak of. We apparently have > > > decided not to make policy that makes a bunch of packages instantly non- > > > compliant without a reasonable transition. > > On Sat, Sep 18, 1999

Re: On Policy Compliance (was Re: static user IDs)

1999-09-19 Thread Raul Miller
> On Sep 18, Joseph Carter wrote: > > It's a problem if there's no transition to speak of. We apparently have > > decided not to make policy that makes a bunch of packages instantly non- > > compliant without a reasonable transition. On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 11:24:13PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:

Bug#45406: PROPOSAL] Config files must have manpages

1999-09-19 Thread Raul Miller
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 01:23:53PM -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote: > (Actually, if there is any easy way to use the debian package > management system to find out this info, I suppose that would make me > more than happy...) Sadly, there's no ready reference for all the various interfaces which have e

On Policy Compliance (was Re: static user IDs)

1999-09-19 Thread Chris Lawrence
On Sep 18, Joseph Carter wrote: > It's a problem if there's no transition to speak of. We apparently have > decided not to make policy that makes a bunch of packages instantly non- > compliant without a reasonable transition. I think we're starting to bastardize the concept of "policy compliance"

Re: static user IDs

1999-09-19 Thread Joseph Carter
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 09:38:37PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > I think the practice of using static IDs should be deprecated (and > > packages doing it should get lintian warnings..) I disagree with banning > > them outright as it doesn't really give packages a chance to get fixed > > before t

Bug#45406: PROPOSAL] Config files must have manpages

1999-09-19 Thread Joseph Carter
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 02:32:09PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote: > Should be add `intended for direct user modification'? Are there > configfiles that are `internal' and should be allowed to remain > undocumented? Yes there are some such config files. I believe tetex has one, for example. --

Re: static user IDs

1999-09-19 Thread Michael Stone
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 06:13:20PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > I think the practice of using static IDs should be deprecated (and > packages doing it should get lintian warnings..) I disagree with banning > them outright as it doesn't really give packages a chance to get fixed > before they have

Bug#42236: marked as done ([PROPOSAL] method for shlibs to work with libfoo.so)

1999-09-19 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sat, 18 Sep 1999 18:03:10 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Weekly policy summary has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibili

static user IDs

1999-09-19 Thread Joseph Carter
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 12:17:59PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > Section 3.2 should not allow static user ids (except root=0) (#43483) > * Stalled for 2 weeks. > * Proposed by Andreas Jellinghaus. > * Policy currently allows for static uid' to be hardcoded into > daemons. The proposal is to c

/var/mail

1999-09-19 Thread Joseph Carter
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 12:17:59PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > /var/mail and /var/spool/mail (#42052) > * Old. > * Proposed by Joseph Carter; seconded by Gordon Matzigkeit, Joey > Hess and Santiago Vila. > * This outlines a migration path from /var/spool/mail to /var/mail. > Old systems

Bug#45318: PROPOSAL] Ammend contrib definition

1999-09-19 Thread Joseph Carter
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 02:22:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > That is, that the only consideration about whether a package should be > added to main, contrib or non-free be its licensing terms. > > Packages that are `too buggy to support' or `fail to meet policy > requirements in a serious way'

Bug#45406: PROPOSAL] Config files must have manpages

1999-09-19 Thread Nicolás Lichtmaier
> > No I don't think that it's good idea. There's no point adding a bunch of > > undocumented symlink to all missing man page for configuration file. :-) > > > > I agree that having a man page for the configuration file is good but I > > don't want to force Debian developers to write man page for