[Please followup to -policy and not -devel]
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:36:36PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I'll use your interpretation, but there's no way I could have
decoded that meaning from the packaging manual.
Thanks,
Peter
Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 05:42:16PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
So how about modifying the wording to say:
Build-Depends, Build-Conflicts
The Build-Depends and Build-Conflicts fields describe binary
dependencies and conflicts which must be satisfied when making
the build,
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 11:00:59PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
(2) The sysadmin upgrades the foo package. Dpkg notices that
/etc/foo.conf has changed and offers to upgrade it. The sysadmin
agrees. Now what happened seems to be that after this (and I
don't quite know how this
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 10:01:16PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 20-Jun-00, 17:00 (CDT), Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 10:08:30AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
Rationale: this is because an admin might edit a conffile without
updating the links, resulting
Richard Hawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sentence 2 of paragraph 1 says: These scripts should be named
/etc/init.d/package,
when should scripts have a .sh suffix?
rc and rcS scripts optimize by sourcing .sh scripts
All bash scripts could be sourced
Should all scripts be bash scripts
or
reassign 34610 mico
thanks
Well, there wasn't really a consensus. mico does things differently
from the rest of the packages in Debian. The dpkg developers
reassigned it to policy. Policy didn't seem to have much to say about
it.
So I'm reassigning this bug to mico for them to deal with. If
Brock Rozen suggested that init.d scripts should have explicit
PATH=... settings. No-one commented on the idea.
In general, all programs which make assumptions about PATH containing
more that /bin and /usr/bin should probably explicitly set PATH; this
problem is not exclusive to /etc/init.d
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 34610 mico
Bug#34610: [OLD PROPOSAL] unsuffixed shared libraries
Bug reassigned from package `debian-policy' to `mico'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs
Your message dated Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:58:09 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#34046: [REJECTED] runlevels policy: xdm should not be
started in all multi-user runlevels by default
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
Your message dated Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:10:28 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#34652: Policy is not clear enough about nawk.
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case
Your message dated Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:12:55 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#35510: [OLD PROPOSAL] mirror license seems Debian-specific
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is
Your message dated Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:19:05 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#36619: [REJECTED] Allowable values of PAGER variable
should be described in policy
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
Your message dated Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:35:15 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Closing NFS-safe policy bugs
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
On Wed, 21 June 2000 19:17:21 +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Brock Rozen suggested that init.d scripts should have explicit
PATH=... settings. No-one commented on the idea.
I had the problem when once I wrote a script that was
calling /etc/init.d/sysklogd which called start-stop-daemon.
Now
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 10:30:07AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
Ah, I see what you're saying. You're talking about the case where the
package actually *contains* the hard link, rather than, say, making it
in the post-inst. Yes, that will definitely break badly.
In that case, I suggest
I still think that we should put the basics in, according to the original
proposal.
Nonetheless, if people don't like the proposal then what can I do? ;-)
If that's the case, then yeah, it should go into that doco.
BR
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 at 19:17, Julian Gilbey wrote about Bug#36151:...:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 at 18:41, Alexander Koch wrote about Re: Bug#36151:...:
I do not think this is how it is meant to be, given that
/sbin/ is probably not in the typical user PATH setting for
a reason. And it is not the default anyway.
You're right. But the typical user doesn't run scripts
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
retitle 65577 [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a
part of Debian distribution
Bug#65577: [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a part
of Debian distribution
Changed Bug title.
retitle 65557
18 matches
Mail list logo
