On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:41:55PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think I tend to disagree here. I really expect more of a
debian developer than a glorified bureaucrat -- we are trying to
create the best free distribution, and that often entails making the
package *better* than
On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 10:54:04AM -0800, Seth R Arnold wrote:
Some programs are just complex -- not many people can claim to know
what every file in the linux kernel can do. Not many people can claim
to know sendmail/qmail/exim/smail/postfix inside and out. X? Ouch. (If
you, the gentle
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 02:58:45AM -0800, Seth R Arnold wrote:
Probably not, at least right away. However, in the long run, if Debian
gets a reputation for being beligerant to its developers, people might
move to other distros or other free unices -- depriving Debian of
perhaps their future
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 02:21:22PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 29-Jan-00, 23:19 (CST), Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or, for example, there's no X debian package. Yet, if you look at
xbase-clients, for example, you'll see that there's an outstanding bug
report for every
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:10:02PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
*Any* file that is owned by a package must be declared by that package
to dpkg, this includes any log files, database files or configuration
files that the package might create. So, for instance, dpkg -S
/var/log/apache/access.log
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 09:19:26AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
Raul The simple solution to letting the administrator know the
Raul package which created the file (which you already see in
Raul place here) is to ensure that the path name has the package
Raul name clearly embedded.
On Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 06:33:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I guess I need to put xbase-clients up for adoption then.
Eh? Considering the rate at which you've been fixing X bugs,
I hope that's just a rhetorical statement. You've been doing
great, it's just that there's a lot of work
On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 11:39:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This will *NOT* wprk. Most distributions based on Debian are
unlikely to repackage the debs -- they just mirror and
copy. Enforcing this is also difficult. And then there are personally
compiled packages
Perhaps
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:27:26AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
If we need an excuse, here's a simple one: policy requires that you
have a bug report on file if you use undocumented(7), but lintian
can't check this. (Not easily, anyway.)
Alternatively, since for lintian all we want is a
On 05-Apr-00, 13:19 (CDT), Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it should be a requirement that Debian maintainers have email
addresses which accept all validly formatted email, at least in
response to bug-reporting discussions. Is this controversial?
On Wed, Apr 05,
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
Severity: important
debian-policy omits packaging manual, changelog indicates
that packaging manual is still present (doesn't indicate
any reason for it to be omitted).
--
Raul
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 01:40:40PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Since the debian-legal mailing list exists and it was specifically
created to discuss copyright and licensing issues, the above reference
should be changed to refer to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
I'm seconding this proposal.
--
Raul
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 11:48:17PM -, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
The debian-policy source package creates two binary packages:
debian-policy and packaging-manual. They have identical changelogs,
which refer to both packages. You might want to install the
packaging-manual package.
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 03:22:19AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
Are you sure about that? I remember something about programs providing
the necessary hooks to insert encryption software to be restricted
too.
I, too, have heard about this. But I think it is something that people
have said,
Ok, nothing illegal about that.
...
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 12:20:38PM -0400, Daniel Martin wrote:
A common misconception.
Under the old (1999 and earlier) encryption export controls, _all_
encryption had to apply for an export license - even the stupid xor
with some fixed byte method.
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 07:46:11PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
Has anyone submitted the non-US tree to Treasury so that it can be
reviewed and exported legally? Unless somebody's done that, the
current export control laws still prevent export of it...They've been
LOOSENED, not eliminated.
Um..
My guess is that debconf could be pressed into service, here. For woody,
it would be nice to have a whole category of optional questions related to
do you want this exported or not. Share some initial leading question
or three, so that people can choose whether they want this level of
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:20:08PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
Things have *not* gone as planned so far. So, saying stick with the
plan, stick with the plan seems a bit myopic. We're already not
sticking with the plan, which involved releasing Potato in time for
Christmas '99, IIRC.
From: Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... Current policy
requires that /usr/doc/package exist (possibly as a symlink to
/usr/share/doc/package).
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:17:32PM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote:
Then why don't more package implement that policy?
Please give some examples
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:36:16PM +0200, J?rgen A. Erhard wrote:
dpkg -L foo |grep man
has been useless more often than I liked... thanks to undocumented(1).
Yep, another reason for getting rid of that junk.
[Personally, I've got dpkg redirected so that the cover
script fires up a little
has been useless more often than I liked... thanks to undocumented(1).
On Mon, 28.08.00 13:03 -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Wasn't there a policy proposal to get rid of these bogus pages?
On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 07:50:29PM +0200, Christian Hammers wrote:
... to be replaced by what
Previously Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
Capabilities are the future of security in Linux. Capabilities
are supported in the kernel Debian is now shipping with potato. FS
support will surely be one of the first things added to 2.5.
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 12:09:51AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman
Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote:
That would not be a logical step. Right now programs such as rlogin, ssh,
NFS etc make sure that you cannot login as root or that root rights
get smashed. If your box is cracked somehow, it often is the case that
people can get any userid
Warning: I'm not an expert.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:54:04AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
- is root still required? If so why and what for?
Exactly.
Or, put another way, we're going to have to re-write a lot
of administrative docs to adapt to a capabilities-based
security setup. And then we'll
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 08:59:20PM -0400, Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
However after further reading I stand by my previous assertion that
slapping capapilities ontop of a Un*x like system is asking for
trouble.
Depends what you do.
Are we really going to get anything valuable out of this? Will
, is that Andrew Morgan
suggested it to me:
quote
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 22:25:27 -0700
From: Andrew Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: file ownership capability?
This is really more suitable for implementation with MAC (Manditory
Access Control). The capability stuff
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 10:52:46AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Using install-sh while /usr/bin/install exists just wastes
time/resources of people who recompile (think 6 build daemons), I
don't see why shouldn't Policy recommend a more rational method.
Maybe.
Potential problems:
[1] This
On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 02:48:18PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Would this not be easier done by having a mapping done at
unpack/install time, and then only scripts/programs with hard coded
paths need be changed?
Uh.. to the best of my knowledge, most packages which use these paths
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:02:27PM +0200, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
- I will develop a plan for this idea while keeping in mind every
suggestion and recommendation I have received and will receive from you
- Later this month I'll make a test page for this on people.debian.org.
- When I will
I presume that packages without a Bugs field will be treated as if
they have a default value (presumably debbugs), and that packages
without an Origin field will be treated as if they have a default value
(perhaps Debian)?
Also:
On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 04:28:44AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 12:42:24PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
Note that *nothing* we do provides any control over manually submitted
bugs -- those go whereever the user decides to send them.
We can, however, make recommendations.
Thanks,
--
Raul
with several thousand GPLed packages installed. [Ok, maybe that's not
very funny...]
Anyways, optimization should come after correctness, not before.
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 01:19:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Debian advertises a freely redistributable system, with no special need
to read
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target
system that is Debian matter?
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
Actually, it does make a difference -- we're not in violation of the
GPL for any
[See http://bugs.debian.org/34673 for background]
I'd like to propose that we make explicit some guidelines about how
well we support our various releases. I'm not proposing that these be
retroactive -- the examples are just meant as clarification.
The part of this I'm least certain about is
[This is not about source package format.]
Currently, the debian/ directory goes inside the source directory,
and we sometimes can't use pristine upstream sources because they don't
conform to our standards.
The obvious way to fix this is: have a standard for the debian source
directory, and
On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 01:50:15PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
Trying to understand this directory structure (do I have this
correct?):
xyz-0.0/ [1]
xyz-0.0/debian/ [2] could be symlink to source/debian [4]
xyz-0.0/source/ [3] pristine source
Yep.
tar -C
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 03:52:08AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So you want a section:
A.1.1
ObMaintainerScript: preinst
?
The Packaging manual defines what control files are allowable and what
they're for; policy only mentions them if they're particularly relevant
This is related to my recent post asking for people to poke holes in a
redesigned source layout.
If Mirian writes the implementation, would we want to use this?
Thanks,
--
Raul
- Forwarded message from Mirian Crzig Lennox [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mirian Crzig
P.S. I forgot to include the reasoning behind this cvs/rsync-like
diff format. [And, yeah, we'd need a patch tool, as well, which
can use these diffs.]
Thanks,
--
Raul
- Forwarded message from Mirian Crzig Lennox [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mirian Crzig Lennox)
Seconded, as amended in the 2000-12-22 debian-policy message with the header
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Rationale:
2.5% of debian packages[1] use debconf to prompt
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
non-US/main, since the license to the software itself is free.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 02:47:57PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
But if I don't misunderstand chapter 7 (and 8) of the GPL a program
licenced under the GPL that is threatened by a patent
This would be non-DFSG if we couldn't distribute it at all.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:17:05PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
You can certainly say this _archive_ is only for the use of residents
of the following countries and even try to enforce that, as long as
you don't actually try to
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 05:27:06PM -0800, Seth R Arnold wrote:
Hey guys, please ensure to re-read Q22 on this link:
http://www.bxa.doc.gov/Encryption/Oct2KQandAs.html
Looks like whoever wrote this was utterly clueless -- this is only a
token prohibition.
But, since it is the u.s. government, I
I agree that this would be a good policy.
If this were an actual policy proposal (with the indicated textual change
to policy), I think I would second it.
[Note also that some of these implementations support a lot more than
just servlets -- some support jsp and or ejb.]
Thanks,
--
Raul
On
Seconded, in this form.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 02:44:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 04:45:01PM +0100, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
So here's a little patch to fix the package names in the current
policy:
I second this proposal, amended as
I think this change should say something about full screen support.
Otherwise, if 9term were modified such that -T is equivalent to -label,
it would get the highest priority -- but it emulates a printer.
--
Raul
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 03:27:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Package:
Seconded.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 03:44:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.2.1.2
Severity: wishlist
This policy revision is long overdue, since the transition away from the
current policy is actually largely complete already.
This is
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:43:12AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I think this change should say something about full screen support.
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:43:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Full screen support? What does that mean? Maximizable to the size of the
root window? Works
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:57:31PM +0100, Jakob B?hm wrote:
Some examples of issues for 2 include
no-source (example: Netscape, opera)
no-commercial-use (example: zyxel)
payment-required (example: opera5.0)
These are all non-free. If they're also in non-US
there must be other reasons.
..
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 09:23:26AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I'm developing a bit of a pet peeve against people who
insist that things be done while at the same time refusing to do them
themselves.
Are you going to go through the distribution and maintain a list of
which
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 12:14:58AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Doesn't work because of debian's Filesystem Hierarchy Standard.
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 09:02:21AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What a pity not having sensible packages of djb software in debian (e.g.
see bind's youngest
Please see: http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
For inclusion in non-free, which is more significant: access to source
code or 100% FHS compliance?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:39:22AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
For inclusion in non-free, which is more significant: access to source
code or 100% FHS compliance?
A further comment (from Paul Jarc):
The FHS says: The /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system
administrator when installing
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:39:22AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
For inclusion in non-free, which is more significant: access to source
code or 100% FHS compliance?
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:44:52AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
The latter. But note that non-free is not part of Debian.
Ok
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
Please see: http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:27:47AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The holes in that page are so large you could drive fleets of roadtrains
through them.
I'm disregarding this as a troll.
I refer
You are the release manager. File the bugs, declare them
release critical [...]
Anthony Towns wrote:
Okay. Whatever. I really don't have the patience for -policy anymore.
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 10:17:48PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
You know, neither do I. Manoj, have fun waiting until
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 06:04:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Please go back and reread the thread about this immediately after
potato's release: the problem with tasks as they existed for potato
was that they make it very hard to cope with RC bugs in packages in
a task. If any one package
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 07:24:35PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
But, basically, you don't need to waste time getting permission for doing
this: if it's the right thing to do (and a superficial study seems to
indicate that it is) just go ahead and do it.
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:48:32AM +1000
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 01:28:08AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't think that you should ever consider policy to completely cover
all release issues. Use it as a checklist, certainly, but its value
comes from its stability -- making last minute changes to policy makes
about as much
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:12:30PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
and there are cross-compilers, whose time-honored standard locations
have been completely banned by the FHS.
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:22:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Right. But again: the FHS doesn't say anything useful
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.4.0
Severity: wishlist
perl policy 3.4.2 isn't clear about context.
Fix:
*** perl-policy.sgml-orig Fri May 25 12:51:03 2001
--- perl-policy.sgmlFri May 25 13:00:06 2001
***
*** 341,348
packageperl/package or
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.4.0
Severity: wishlist
[reposted with a better subject line]
perl policy 3.4.2 isn't clear about context.
Fix:
*** perl-policy.sgml-orig Fri May 25 12:51:03 2001
--- perl-policy.sgmlFri May 25 13:00:06 2001
***
*** 341,348
Seconded.
--
Raul
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 07:36:39PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
Perhaps it would be clearer to just explicitly indicate the source of
%Config inline:
--- perl-policy.sgml.orig Thu May 31 19:34:40 2001
+++ perl-policy.sgml Thu May 31 19:33:04 2001
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
On 30-May-01, 22:25 (CDT), Cesar Eduardo Barros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Making sure everything works with UTF-8 charset
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 01:38:32PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
Does this mean, for example, that cron and crontab would have to be
recoded to support wide or multibyte
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 06:08:43PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
At present cron parses the command simply by reading everything up
to the end of the line ('\n'), char by char (in the C type sense of
'char'). Is there a guarantee that byte value representing '\n' won't
show up in the sequence?
Seconded, with this change.
--
Raul
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 12:54:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Radovan Garabik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the recent discussion about UTF-8 support in debian,
I would like to come forth with following proposal.
Any comments, suggestions, and grammar
I think the simplest way of dealing with messages in flight across
mail transport agent changes would be to define a simple queue
structure to hold the messages across mta installations.
Probably the simplest mechanism is a directory with one file
per message, first line being envelope from
Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[examples deleted]
I really think documentation is not ready for the DFSG.
Or the DFSG is not ready for documentation, license agreements, ..
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Take a look at bug #21580. The user says I should change the location of
rimapd from /usr/sbin to /etc.
The needs expressed were:
(1) there's a bug in debian pine
(2) he wants location independent references (presumably for shell
scripts,
Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reason why we need this requirement, is that we _have_ to detect
orphaned packages by some automatic procedure. Note, that our
distribution still contains packages from developers who left over a
year ago!
I'm not disagreeing with you,
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. I do think this leads to a dilution of technical discipline. And
we already have way too many open bug reports; people do not seem to
want to fix ``real'' bugs, and ``mere'' policy reports would be seen
as fluff.
Policy is a kind of statement
Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the problem has arisen because 1) the policy documents
have not sufficiently delineated the difference between prescriptive
(shall, must) provisions and (strong) recommendations (should, must),
and 2) because some (many?) developers disagree
Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are a nuamber of sub-threads in this thread using the same
header. My posting was written before I saw the one that discussed
open bugs. The problem that I was referring to was the disagreement
between those who felt policy should be a binding
Guy == Guy Maor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guy The constitution places no limitations on the developer's
Guy authority with regard to their own work. Your version says that
Guy the maintainers must follow policy.
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is that such a bad thing, really? I
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You do have a tendency to jump to untenable positions. Who
said that we shall remove all packages with bugs or all packages that
fail to follow policy?
You made an ambiguous statement. You made a statement about how policy
should have more
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please point the clause to me that I should use the help of a
a dictionary to elucidate for my feeble intellect.
Policy: 1. a plan of action; way of management; It is a poor policy to
promise more than you can do. The tight-money policy was also
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, policy means something which has been adopted by a body. Hace
we actually done so? Am I saying we interpret the contents of the
policy documents differently? no, but the significance of the policy
documents definitely shall change.
Er...
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We do need a statement saying that the project has indeed adopted
this policy document, and the ``policy'' nomenclature is not a
``mistake''.
We have one -- Ian made it. You've been objecting to it.
[Actually, we have many such statements, go look
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wish you would talk to Raul directly. He points out that
violations of policy shall be enforced thus:
a) since policy is supposed to be authoritative for bug filers, and
policy violation can be flagged as a bug.
b) any disputes about
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your objection is to the use of the admittedly subjective criteria
if they feel it is a technically superior approach. Would the
(slightly) more objective criteria if they feel that strict adherence
to the policy would jeopardize system integrity or weaken
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, policy is not meant to be followed anyway.
Cut it out, Manoj.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, policy is not meant to be followed anyway.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Cut it out, Manoj.
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why? You should be happy I'm on your side now. Were you not objecting
to the statement
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul I've mostly agreed with (Buddha and Philip's) statement you
Raul quoted a few days ago which talks about what to do when policy
Raul doesn't apply properly. I think it has a weakness: in creating
Raul the rules for how debian-policy is or isn't
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think the wording does leave room for any interpretation. You are
free to read it in native english or in english written by a german guy,
you still get the same meaning: Out of w.x.y.z, the first three have to be
coorect (w.x.y) while the
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, when Debian was formed it had only one developer,
and no one could contribute packages, since that would have diluted
the distributions tight integration. This bazaar thing has evolved.
My memory doesn't extend back that far, nor
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either. Both. Have you read the original statement?
Ok, I found the original statement.
I suggest that it be ignored until clarified by its author.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reading your draft, I see discussion of the importance of the goals,
but not the importance of the standards -- or at least, not in as many
words.
Fair enough.
Do you think the small change you recommended satisfy this need? Or are
you asking for some
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest this is clear enough. As the author has left Debian
(you were aware of that, were you not?), that would be hard to do,
and, in any case is not required. What reason do you have for
outlawing the specification of the 5rth digit in
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This discussion is very silly. I shall not comment on this
thread again.
Me neither.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to suggest that the issue be raised on debian-policy at some
stage, preferably before the package was released.
Indeed, debian-policy should get all bug reports filed against policy.
I'd prefer that the list be registered as the maintainer for
Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO it would be better to use debian-policy for all policy
related matters, but far too many developers feel they don't have time
to subscribe to debian-policy, but then complain bitterly that policy
was adopted without their input.
Probably because
Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote last week:
What's protocol on closing bugs in someone else's package when it's
clear that the bugs were actually fixed (in a maintainer release or by
the circumstances around the bug changing) some time ago but stayed open
in the tracking system?
If
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk wrote:
3. Should there be policy on this matter for database packages in particular?
I would like to see a way to preemptively indicate that the data
should not be deleted. In a busy environment with several sysadmins,
you want to be able to make such decisions
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to see a way to preemptively indicate that the data
should not be deleted. In a busy environment with several sysadmins,
you want to be able to make such decisions ahead of time.
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't you use chattr
I thought it only implied one bit of configuration information somewhere
under /etc/.
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk wrote:
Yes, but this is a particular case of the general problem of interactive
installation scripts. Furthermore, this particular case is one that is a
bit extreme: on
Andreas Degert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I just install one package, it's ok that a lot of output is
produced, and maybe some questions are asked. But when I upgrade
a batch of packages or install a new system, it's not an optimal
solution.
This doesn't scale to multiple machines.
If you
Andreas Degert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are a lot of packages with config files that can't be generated
using some simple questions (on my systems packages like autofs,
samba, lprng, X11, apt, dosemu, svgatextmode, netstd, pcmcia-cs, sane,
samba, sudo, tetex, wine). This would have to be
Andreas Degert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Configuration of samba is too complex; on my server there is a
smb.conf with 350 lines, and some additional files that are included
when connections to special machines are made. You can define such a
configuration with a text editor or with a complex
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I am still a little bit confused by the fact that people still
call them configuration files. Is any sh-script a configuration file
for the /bin/sh program?
Technically, anything that is modified to configure the system is a
conffile.
I would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and creating the symlink right away should work just fine. If they
aren't on the same filesystem, the easist way to do the upgrade is to
install a self-deleting script in /etc/rc.d/init.d which moves the
directory and then installs the compatibility
101 - 200 of 302 matches
Mail list logo
