Have we decided on whether aj's proposed changes (below) are
what we reached a consensus on?
==
/usr/lib/cgi-bin/
packages dump CGI scripts in here willy-nilly
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.1
Severity: important
Section 11.7.3 says that changes to configuration files are supposed to be
preserved on upgrade. This is not commonly done, however, if the change
consists in deleting the file entirely. Existing practice is probably fine,
but the
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.1
Severity: important
Section 11.7.3 says that changes to configuration files are supposed to be
preserved on upgrade. This is not commonly done, however, if the change
consists in deleting the file
Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which may not always be the Right Thing. cf. config files in .d
directories like cron.d, ip-up.d or similar.
Sure; my wording is quite conservative, merely pointing out current
practice more carefully. I have no particular reason to think current
We make new work shoes for importers:
www.wins-chinaboots.com
Regards,
Wentao
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
severity 162120 wishlist
Bug#162120: debian-policy: Deletion of configuration files--should it be
preserved?
Severity set to `wishlist'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system
severity 162120 wishlist
thanks
justification: this is not a flaw in the policy, at best, this may be
a proposal to change policy to codifying, in my opinion, a less
desirable behaviour, and should be treated like any other proposal
Hi,
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
severity 162120 wishlist
thanks
justification: this is not a flaw in the policy, at best, this may be
a proposal to change policy to codifying, in my opinion, a less
desirable behaviour, and should be treated like any other proposal
Sorry,
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:11:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
justification: this is not a flaw in the policy, at best, this may be
a proposal to change policy to codifying, in my opinion, a less
desirable behaviour, and should be treated like any other proposal
For heaven's sake, does
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
The. Packages. Are. Not. Broken. It's that simple. How many times have you
found base-passwd recreating /etc/passwd and /etc/group a nuisance? Never?
Funny that.
Why the fuck do we have to have a debate about this?
We don't; any behavior here is
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 07:54:15PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We have to have a debate about it because there is an actual
substantive disagreement between you and Manoj.
Really? What is it? I only saw comments that amount to I interpret
policy this way and other things do it this
11 matches
Mail list logo
