* Craig Small [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020505 20:19]:
I have got bug #138251 which talks about the init.d script and how it
is missing some nices things etc.
Should Debian scripts be following the LSB and if so, why doesn't the
policy either mention the LSB or have the same standards?
This is
HTML
head
META HTTP-EQUIV=Content-Type CONTENT=text/html;charset=Windows-1252
TITLE/TITLE
META HTTP-EQUIV=Content-Type CONTENT=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
base target=_blank
/HEAD
!--BACKGROUND PAGE COLOR--
BODY bgcolor=#FF LINK=#689000 vlink=#92BC24 alink=#689000
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 09:02:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Adam == Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adam We(Wichert and I) implement features that users want, when we
Adam have time. We implement those that are interesting to us when
Adam we have free time. I don't think either
Previously Grant Bowman wrote:
As I've argued late last year [1] Debian should take the necessary
Policy steps to move forward with LSB adoption.
I agree, but I would like to add we should wait until woody is released.
Wichert.
--
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:08:51AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
I don't care about now, I care about the next release, or the release
after that.
Then how about you spend a moment thinking about it from _my_ perspective
and stop whining until the next release or the release after that. Yeesh.
FROM:MRS. M. SESE-SEKO
DEAR FRIEND,
I AM MRS. MARIAM SESE-SEKO WIDOW OF LATE PRESIDENT
MOBUTU SESE-SEKO OF ZAIRE? NOW KNOWN AS DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC OF CONGO
(DRC). I AM MOVED TO WRITE YOU THIS LETTER, THIS WAS IN
CONFIDENCE
CONSIDERING MY PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE AND SITUATION.
I ESCAPED
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 01:16:09PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
Hello,
I have got bug #138251 which talks about the init.d script and how it
is missing some nices things etc.
Should Debian scripts be following the LSB and if so, why doesn't the
policy either mention the LSB or have the same
Previously Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Debian is more than GNU/Linux. I see no reason why Debian GNU/Hurd and
Debian *BSD should follow the LSB.
This is a discussion we should be having after the release on a forum
like debian-project.
FWIW, I think we should try to use the LSB as much as possible
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 12:12:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:08:51AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
I don't care about now, I care about the next release, or the release
after that.
Then how about you spend a moment thinking about it from _my_ perspective
and
* Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020506 08:25]:
Previously Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Debian is more than GNU/Linux. I see no reason why Debian GNU/Hurd and
Debian *BSD should follow the LSB.
This is a discussion we should be having after the release on a forum
like debian-project.
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
I think this was discussed enough in -devel already, but
some good points about /libexec was given.
I've noticed that some known good practice is not documented in policy,
and I propose the following patch:
diff -u policy.sgml{.orig,}
---
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 12:12:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:08:51AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
I don't care about now, I care about the next release, or the release
after that.
Then how about you spend a moment thinking about it from _my_ perspective
and
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 09:34:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 10:09:11AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Part I: The Debian Archive
1: DFSG and the sections of the archive (free, non-free, contrib, non-us)
Components is a much better word
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:02:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If the dpkg authors would like to hand off some of their design decisions
to -policy on a generalised basis, I'm sure they'd say so. It seems a bit,
well, wrong-headed for -policy to be trying to take control of dpkg though.
Quite:
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 09:02:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Adam == Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adam We(Wichert and I) implement features that users want, when we
Adam have time. We implement those that are
On May 06, Craig Small wrote:
I have got bug #138251 which talks about the init.d script and how it
is missing some nices things etc.
Should Debian scripts be following the LSB and if so, why doesn't the
policy either mention the LSB or have the same standards?
FWIW, the current edition
Craig == Craig Small [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Craig Should Debian scripts be following the LSB and if so, why
Craig doesn't the policy either mention the LSB or have the same
Craig standards?
Why on earth should debian init scripts follow the
requirements for distribution agnostic
Junichi == Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Junichi I think this was discussed enough in -devel already, but
Junichi some good points about /libexec was given. I've noticed
Junichi that some known good practice is not documented in policy,
Firstly, there is no such consensus
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 05:19:07PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Debian is more than GNU/Linux. I see no reason why Debian GNU/Hurd and
Debian *BSD should follow the LSB.
This is a discussion we should be having after the release on a forum
like
* Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020506 15:47]:
Grant == Grant Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Grant As I've argued late last year [1] Debian should take the necessary
Grant Policy steps to move forward with LSB adoption.
If LSB adoption means that LSB packages shuold be able
20 matches
Mail list logo
