> if that behavior is useful. Examples? Well, I don't really think of
> the /etc/init.d startup scripts as configuration files in any purest
> sense; they are more acurately described as "scripts subject to local
> modification" (which I personally would prefer be modified to store the
> configurat
> On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 02:45:04AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Do you know of any conffiles which are not configuration files? The
> > concept of a conffile which is not a configuration file is bizarre.
>
> /etc/init.d/* and /etc/cron.d/* are not really configuration files for
> the program
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Section 3.3 currently makes reference to /etc/rc?.d as containing
> symlinks to the scripts in /etc/init.d, and a detailed description of
> how init uses them. It goes on, in section 3.3.3, to say:
> A program is provided, `update-rc.d', to make it ea
On 17-Jul-99, 20:45 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note that a script that embeds configuration information (such as most
> > of the files in `/etc/init.d' and `/etc/cron.{hourly,weekly,monthly}')
> > is de-facto a configuration file and should be treated as suc
Steve Greenland wrote:
> What Hamish was pointing out is that it's okay to use emacs or vi or
> icepref to modify configuration files and even conffiles. The policy
> proposal was in no way meant to imply that you can't write programs to
> modify conffiles (either general or specific), just that t
Programs which need to refer to all Debian docs should then still be
pointing to /usr/doc, until the migration is nearly complete. I'm talking
about apache ( /doc/ ), dhelp, etc.
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> inetd.conf is _not_ a conffile.
Ok, now I understand. In a previous mail you once wrote "conffile"
when you probably meant "configuration file which is not a conffile" and
this was causing somy of my confusion. Sorry for this!
--
Stefan Gybas
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 12:44:17PM +0200, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> So if this update-inetd program modifies a conffile, I am not allowed to
> call it from my postinst? What's the reason for such a program then?
inetd.conf is _not_ a conffile. Actually, dpkg does not know about it at all:
[9:16pm] [E
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 02:45:04AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Do you know of any conffiles which are not configuration files? The
> concept of a conffile which is not a configuration file is bizarre.
/etc/init.d/* and /etc/cron.d/* are not really configuration files for
the programs in the pac
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> In short, you may not automatically modify the conffile of another package,
> either from your postinst or from a program called from your postinst.
> [...]
> It's a very friendly solution, but later dpkg will ask them about upgrading
> configuration files they've never hea
On Sat, Jul 17, 1999 at 03:26:09PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Hess). I'd guess that Hamish generally approves...but unless I get at
> least one more second, I'm going to have to let these drop.
I second this proposal.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB (ex-VK3TYD).
CCs of replies from mailin
> On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:35:04PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Data section (#38902)
> > * Proposed on 3 Jun 1999 by Darren O. Benham; seconded by Peter S
> > Galbraith, Peter Makholm and Peter Makholm.
I hate to say this but I think my involvment in this proposal is
cursed. In the beginn
On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 10:15:42AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Personally I think /usr/src/linux should GO AWAY. Every sysadmin worth
> their salt uses /usr/src/linux-version or similar with a symlink pointing
> back for compatibility. It's only common sense that you don't throw away
> the old
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.0.0.0
Severity: wishlist
Section 3.3 currently makes reference to /etc/rc?.d as containing
symlinks to the scripts in /etc/init.d, and a detailed description of
how init uses them. It goes on, in section 3.3.3, to say:
A program is provided, `update-rc.d', to m
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 32448 [ACCEPTED 1999/07/18] Policy should use /etc/rcS.d instead of
> /etc/rc.boot
Bug#32448: [PROPOSED] Policy should suggest /etc/rcS.d instead of /etc/rc.boot
Changed bug title.
> severity 32448 normal
Bug#32448: [ACCEPTED 1999/07/18] Polic
Seconded.
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
A few questions on the wording of this, but once those are clarified,
I will second the proposal.
> 4.7.1. Definitions
> --
>
> configuration file
> A file that affects the operation of program, or provides site-
> or host-specific information, or otherwis
retitle 32448 [ACCEPTED 1999/07/18] Policy should use /etc/rcS.d instead of
/etc/rc.boot
severity 32448 normal
forwarded 32448 debian-policy@lists.debian.org
thanks
> Policy still suggests /etc/rc.boot instead of /etc/rcS.d (#32448)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed on 26 Jan 1999 by Brian S
> > "Miquel" == Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Miquel> It sounds more like you want a rc.local style directory,
> Miquel> not rc.boot.
>
> Miquel> But what is so difficult about update-rc.d? It's only one
> Miquel> line in the postinst .. (and one in pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 17 Jul 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> PROPOSAL: Easing the transition from `/usr/doc' to `/usr/share/doc'
> ---
>
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
I would say only DFSG data. Anything on our ftp site needs to have
unrestricted redistribution, really, so that we don't have to make any
checks or put ourselves at risk
On Sat, Jul 17, 1999 at 06:22:11PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
>
> One comment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
One comment from the ferret:
Would it make any sense to divide the 'data' section into
main/contrib/non-free, instead of becoming a fourth section alongside
them? I can't think of any examples offhand, but I could see where some
datasets might have restricted re
22 matches
Mail list logo
