On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:20:17PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > If I remember, dpkg does not like replacing a directory with a
> > symlink. This may or may not still be the case.
>
> Ugh, you're right:
[...]
> I still think this is a good proposal -- if we could only fix d
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 01:11:36PM -0700, William Ono wrote:
> > Symlinking /usr/doc/ to /usr/share/doc/ directly
> > is not supported by dpkg, so additional and ugly tweaks would be required
> > in maintainer scripts.
>
> I believe the problem Santiago brings up is that dpkg will become confused
> William> I believe the problem Santiago brings up is that dpkg will
> William> become confused by files appearing in both /usr/doc/package
> William> and /usr/share/doc/package, through the symlink.
On 16 Jul 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Really? Can you provide details, please?
So
Darren O. Benham wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:35:04PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Data section (#38902)
> > * Stalled for 1 week.
> > * Proposed on 3 Jun 1999 by Darren O. Benham; seconded by Peter S
> > Galbraith, Peter Makholm and Peter Makholm.
> > * "Since there is interest in
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:35:04PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Data section (#38902)
> * Stalled for 1 week.
> * Proposed on 3 Jun 1999 by Darren O. Benham; seconded by Peter S
> Galbraith, Peter Makholm and Peter Makholm.
> * "Since there is interest in packaging census data, maps, genome
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I propose that there be a syymlink from /usr/doc/ ->
> /usr/share/doc/, managed by the p[ackage itself. This is how
> it works:
>
> a) Policy 3.X mandates that packages that move the docs to
>/usr/share/doc must provide a compatibility
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > If the upstream changelog file is HTML formatted, it must be
> > > accessible as `/usr/doc//changelog.html.gz'. A plain
> > > text version of the changelog must be accessible as
> > > `/usr/doc//changelog.gz' (this can be created by
> > > `lynx
Here's what's been happening on debian-policy this week.
Many old proposals and all done proposals have been removed from this
posting.
Note: for details of the policy process, see
http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/policy/ch3.html. Also, this summary is
available on the web at http://kitenet.net/~j
>In /usr/doc/debian-policy/policy.html/ch2.html it says:
> Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values. If this
> should happen, one of the priority values will have to be adapted.
>
>I think this is unclear. Especially the second sentence. Perhaps this
>phraseology w
Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> If I remember, dpkg does not like replacing a directory with a
> symlink. This may or may not still be the case.
Ugh, you're right:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/scratch>dpkg --contents foo.deb
drwxrwxr-x joey/joey 0 1999-07-16 14:11 ./
drwxr-xr-x joey/joey 0
Hi,
>>"William" == William Ono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
William> I believe the problem Santiago brings up is that dpkg will
William> become confused by files appearing in both /usr/doc/package
William> and /usr/share/doc/package, through the symlink.
Really? Can you provide details,
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> This issue was discussed at length in debian-devel. I made
Santiago> a proposal in debian-policy and got two seconds and no
Santiago> objections. Why it has to be discussed again?
Because it has been dead for so lo
> "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> Symlinking /usr/doc/ to
Santiago> /usr/share/doc/ directly is not supported by
Santiago> dpkg, so additional and ugly tweaks would be required in
Santiago> maintainer scripts.
Joey> Could you be a little more clea
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> > If the upstream changelog file is HTML formatted, it must be
>
> must?
>
> >> > accessible as `/usr/doc//changelog.html.gz'. A plain
> >> > text version of the changelog must be accessible as
> >> > `/usr/doc//changelog.gz' (this can be created b
Santiago Vila wrote:
> Symlinking /usr/doc/ to /usr/share/doc/ directly
> is not supported by dpkg, so additional and ugly tweaks would be required
> in maintainer scripts.
Could you be a little more clear? Symlinking of /usr/doc/ to
/usr/doc/ clearly works and doesn't bother dpkg at all. Many
pac
I second this proposal.
I have reservations. I hope we have at least one release with a complete
forest of symlinks, and do not remove them until the release after. I'm not
too happy with even doing that, as backwards compatability problems still
exist, but I think it's a decent compromise to requ
Hi,
Why has this rejected old proposal been reopened, without an
iota of explanation? Why is this a normal bug? Why isd it not
following the policy update guidelines?
manoj
--
The difference between a lawyer and a rooster is that the rooster
gets up in the morning and clucks
Hi,
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > If the upstream changelog file is HTML formatted, it must be
must?
>> > accessible as `/usr/doc//changelog.html.gz'. A plain
>> > text version of the changelog must be accessible as
>> > `/usr/doc//changelog.gz' (this
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> This is not as simple.
Santiago> Symlinking /usr/doc/ to /usr/share/doc/
Santiago> directly is not supported by dpkg, so additional and ugly
Santiago> tweaks would be required in maintainer scripts.
Create the sy
Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> FYI: Alexander Reelsen filed bug#41113 against debian-policy, which
> is of interest for debian-java, debian-python as well as debian-perl:
>
> Currently, the Python maintainers have an implicit policy to use a
> naming scheme of python-foo-bar for all Python extension mod
Steve Greenland wrote:
> Hmmm. I tend to think of the first stanza in debian/control as the
> "global" stanza, and the rest as "per package". Therefore, the use
> of Section/Priority is entirely consistent -- default in the first
> stanza, overrides where necessary. Thus, having "Depends" in the gl
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Ok, I accept the amendment into my proposal. The new proposed text:
> > >
> > > If the upstream changelog file is HTML formatted, it must be accessible
> > > as
> > > `/usr/doc//changelog.html.gz'. A plain text version of the
> > > changelog must
> On 16 Jul 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I propose that there be a syymlink from /usr/doc/ ->
> > /usr/share/doc/, managed by the p[ackage itself.
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Symlinking /usr/doc/ to /usr/share/doc/ directly
> is not supported by dpkg, so additional an
Hi,
On 16 Jul, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > On debian-policy, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If the upstream changelog file is HTML formatted, it must be
> > > accessible as
> > > `/usr/doc//changelog.html.gz'. A plain text version of the
> > > changelog must be accessible as `
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 24067 normal
Bug#24067: [REJECTED] Is it ok to close a bug without fixing it?
Severity set to `normal'.
> retitle 24067 Is it ok to close a bug without fixing it?
Bug#24067: [REJECTED] Is it ok to close a bug without fixing it?
Changed bug tit
severity 24067 normal
retitle 24067 Is it ok to close a bug without fixing it?
thanks
Manoj, this bug was not a proposal to be accepted or rejected.
I reassigned this bug to debian-policy because of a disagreement between
the maintainer and the submitter, following Ian Jackson's recommended
proce
Edward Betts wrote:
> On debian-policy, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok, I accept the amendment into my proposal. The new proposed text:
> >
> > If the upstream changelog file is HTML formatted, it must be accessible as
> > `/usr/doc//changelog.html.gz'. A plain text version of the
On 16 Jul 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following amendments seem to have stuck in the discussion
> phase. I am sendint this message to all proposers and seconds, and
> asking them to please either move this amendment to a [REJECT]
> status, call for a vote, or, ask for a
On 16 Jul 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I propose that there be a syymlink from /usr/doc/ ->
> /usr/share/doc/, managed by the p[ackage itself.
>
> [...]
>
> I think the handicap of having to remove a line from the rules
> file (and no action for people who use helper packages)
Hi,
The following amendments seem to have stuck in the discussion
phase. I am sendint this message to all proposers and seconds, and
asking them to please either move this amendment to a [REJECT]
status, call for a vote, or, ask for a fresh discussion (for a week
may be?) and move it a
Hi,
Now that policy 3.0.1 is out, we neede to have a means of
tackling the /usr/doc ==> /usr/share/doc transition.
(A)The transition may take a long time, going by previous
transitions, and not all packages are upgraded anywhere
near simultaneously.
On 15-Jul-99, 02:51 (CDT), Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 09:32:22PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > I realize that these would be in the first stanza of the control
> > file, and therefore don't technically conflict with the binary
> > Depends/Confli
32 matches
Mail list logo
