.
--
---
#include disclaimer.h
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
dbkNU5KpDYvaWmO39O7cQxo=
=hLHW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
---
#include disclaimer.h
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
involved in pissing matches any more)
--
Matthew Palmer, Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org
to it.
I'd prefer to see it move away from being an Apache Policy to being a web
content policy - that is, encompassing web servers, webapps, static content
(where packages should put stuff) and whatever else fits. Restricting it to
apache doesn't feel like the way to go.
--
Matthew Palmer, Debian
follow. g
Let me ask another question - is this still a policy bug? When policy
mentions something which doesn't exist, I can understand that policy is
likely to be in error. But this is, IMO, a dpkg problem now.
--
Matthew Palmer, Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org
) but rather something that people can look to
for a definitive answer.
Perhaps you guys are coping fine, but I have noticed a rather... spurtish
(is that the word?) trend in policy lately. Would more editorial staff help
that?
--
Matthew Palmer, Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Matthew Based on the proposal's use of http://localhost/, or some
Matthew other criteria?
Right now, if I arrange for images to be referenced in
/var/www/, they are accessible elsewhere (I did something like that
when I used to maintain
not
mention it.
Since 1.10 is now out and about and (AFAICT) has sane support for Enhances,
I would suggest that this bug be considered closed.
--
Matthew Palmer, Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Matthew Palmer wrote:
Since 1.10 is now out and about and (AFAICT) has sane support for Enhances,
I would suggest that this bug be considered closed.
No, it doesn't.
Are you contesting 'support' or 'sane'?
From dpkg-1.10.6
the
amendment part of policy, and see no reason why it shouldn't be accepted.
--
Matthew Palmer, Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org
Exim doesn't use debconf (although as soon as I can find time to learn
debconf, a bug+patch will be filed - I want Exim non-interactive).
--
---
#include disclaimer.h
Matthew Palmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to be done before we make a final and binding decision, eh?
There is precedent (kind of), g++ uses /usr/include/g++, so why not
/usr/include/{gnat|ada}?
--
---
#include disclaimer.h
Matthew Palmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
way of putting it. Unfortunately, it has
gone nowhere fast.
--
---
#include disclaimer.h
Matthew Palmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
has source anyway, I'd vote for FHS
compliance.
--
---
#include disclaimer.h
Matthew Palmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
with that?
--
---
#include disclaimer.h
Matthew Palmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
--
---
#include disclaimer.h
Matthew Palmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
16 matches
Mail list logo
