Just going through some really old mails, when I stumbled upon this
thread:
On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 01:59:15PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
It says this:
The system administrator will have the opportunity to customize runlevels
by either running update-rc.d, by simply adding, moving, or
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 08:21:40PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
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
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 09:22:02AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
I can't help but think though that this indicates a bigger problem
in our reliance on maintainer scripts - it is not possible to add new
features without:
- hard-coding the entire feature in the maintainer script
AND/OR
-
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.2.1.0
[Just putting in the BTS]
- Forwarded message from Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Andrew McMillan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: section 4.7.4 is
I (very belatedly) second this proposal. There's one small change I
would make though; see below.
On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 03:03:10AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
There has been some discussion lately on debian-deval (and a bit on
-policy) about init
reopen 72335
retitle 72335 [PROPOSED] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for
debian/rules
thanks
On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 05:27:49PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
There is a problem with the current build-time dependency system.
The build-time dependency system separates
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:06:13AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Package: Debian-policy
Version: 3.2.1.0
Severity: wishlist
I propose that the following file be included in policy, and
be referenced in the Policy manual. Subsequently the packagign manual
package can be taken
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reopen 72335
Bug#72335: [WITHDRAWN] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for
debian/rules
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
retitle 72335 [PROPOSED] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for
debian/rules
Bug#72335: [WITHDRAWN]
On 20001031T195631+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
So even though this languished for a month, I would like to reopen
this proposal and second it.
Okay. I hereby withdraw my earlier withdrawal of this proposal.
It's open again.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] %
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 11:52:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
#60979: What /etc/init.d/xxx restart does?
status: restart stops and starts the program, perhaps we need a
start-rc.d script We now are waiting for code.
Action:
Julian Gilbey wrote:
I (very belatedly) second this proposal.
Thanks. I think I have enough seconds now, don't really remember.
There's one small change I would make though; see below.
+ if [ -e /etc/default/bind ]; then
I would change the test to [ -f /etc/default/bind ].
Why?
On 31-Oct-00, 21:03 (CST), Henrique M Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd prefer to get this whole invoke-rc.d deal into policy with an optional
maybe-restart first to fix the worst mess. After it's in policy, any
developer can propose changing maybe-restart to non-optional and we can have
Gah. Do we have to keep cross-posting threads to multiple lists?
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:03:17AM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
+ `update-rc.d' and the system administrator. Also, requests to
restart a
+ service out of its
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:17:06PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Hi wrote a small draft for directives wrt packaging of kernel patches.
I'd like to have comments on this. I attach the text version. An
HTML version is available at
3.2.1. `apply' telling `unpatch' the patch was applied
--
This is usually done by creating a file named `APPLIED_patchname',
which `unpatch' checks to know whether it has something to do, and
which `apply' also checks to not
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:56:00PM +, Nick Holgate wrote:
3.2.1. `apply' telling `unpatch' the patch was applied
--
This is usually done by creating a file named `APPLIED_patchname',
which `unpatch' checks to know whether
16 matches
Mail list logo
