On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 01:23:53PM -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
There have been several times when I see a file laying around in my
filesystem, and I don't know what it is for. A man on that filename produces
nothing, which is a bit annoying; then I do not know what uses that file,
etc.
Could
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 each
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'
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
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
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 they
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:
I
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 there are
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
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 has one, for
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
