In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you read the lsb? Debian can not at this time claim to support it. We
would have to rewrite not only our init scripts but how we do init scripts.
Then there is the call for specific versions of glibc and a few
On 28-Nov-2001 Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you read the lsb? Debian can not at this time claim to support it. We
would have to rewrite not only our init scripts but how we do init scripts.
Then there is the
According to Sean 'Shaleh' Perry:
If I'm not mistaken that is not nessecary unless we plan to move
all .deb archives over to .lsb too, which is not going to happen.
Debian will stay Debian we just need to make it possible to install
.lsb files *as well*
we can support the installation
On 28-Nov-2001 Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
According to Sean 'Shaleh' Perry:
If I'm not mistaken that is not nessecary unless we plan to move
all .deb archives over to .lsb too, which is not going to happen.
Debian will stay Debian we just need to make it possible to install
.lsb
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 28-Nov-2001 Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
Well no, packages in .lsb that have an /etc/init.d/initscript must
support the 'status' option but Debian packages don't have to do
that as they are Debian packages and not
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 02:11:14AM -0800, Grant Bowman wrote:
It seems to me that a natural step would be to update the policy to
reflect the FHS 2.2 and add LSB 1.0. Is this already in progress?
I'm not sure if there's any sort of official position on this, but
mine is that the LSB isn't in
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on Thursday, November 29, 2001 at 04:35:12
---
: no cc needed!
Wanna See Hot modelsTeen
a
7 matches
Mail list logo
