Santiago Vila wrote:
Please note that not every dependency or conflict is explicit. You
can't read new manpages using an old enough man-db package, unless you
make a little bit of tweaking in the configuration file, and we don't
speak about breakage because of the need of this tweaking.
Well
Anthony Towns wrote:
I think though, probably because policy wasn't very clear about this,
that packages in potato already look in /usr/share/doc for documentation,
so they're already broken, and this may no longer really matter.
At least apache seems to still use /usr/doc. dhelp uses some
On 2829T010700+0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Josip Rodin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:23:52PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The packaging manually actually says it is a makefile:
Yes, and that makes it policy.
No it doesn't.
Interesting. I seem to recall that
Christian == Christian Hammers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian ... to be replaced by what? The maintainers simply won't
Christian write manpages en mass, so when deleting undocumented(1)
Christian many packages will have binaries without manpage making it
Christian harder for newbies to
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey Well that wording has been there forever, so this cannot be a recent
Joey change in policy, though it could be a change in the way some people
Joey interpret policy.
My impression has always been that the packaging manual was
policy.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 10:57:43AM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
BTW: Can someone explain me, why a mailbox should has to be group mail
writable?
I think it's just an artifact, just like the sentence saying the spool
directory should be mail.mail, when we haven't been using that in ages.
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think the tie has come for us to reexamine the packaging
manual, and extract the things that ought to be policy, and let the
other bits go to the dpkg maintianers for update.
Very much agreed!
Wichert.
--
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:57:43 +0200
Roland Rosenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Matt Kraai wrote:
BTW: Can someone explain me, why a mailbox should has to be group
mail writable? Are there any MDAs, which don't run with root
permission? With procmail installed, I can
Hi,
I went through the packaging manual, and these are the parts I
think belong in policy (I had the full text for these sections in
this message, but I was afraid it would pass the max message size
limit). I am also ambivalent about sections like 4.1 Syntax of
control files. That
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 02:57:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
lots of neat stuff
Can we add a section on shared objects that are merely plugins or components
of a larger program?
For example: xmms plugins, and mozilla xpcom objects
Frank aka Myth
Myth == Franklin Belew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Myth On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 02:57:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
lots of neat stuff
Myth Can we add a section on shared objects that are merely plugins
Myth or components of a larger program? For example: xmms plugins,
Myth and
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 02:57:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
6.3. Details of unpack phase of installation or upgrade
6.4. Details of configuration
6.5. Details of removal and/or configuration purging
These sections surely have some technical details that the Policy doesn't
need to
12 matches
Mail list logo
