On Fri, 9 May 2003, Andreas Tille wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.9.0
Severity: minor
Hello,
the thread on debian-devel about
Generally accepted cut-off limit for -doc packages
starting with
reassign 191036 debian-policy
thanks
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0.8.1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
As per the discussion on debian-devel, I am filing this bug with patch
to have base-files create the /run directory. To summarise the
+ When binary packages are on the so-called ttbuild-essential/tt
+ list, the build-dependencies can be omitted. Please see
+ ref id=pkg-relations for more information.
A package is build-essential when it's build-essential according to
the definition of build-essential.
reassign 177306 debian-policy
thanks
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Jordi Mallach wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0.6
Severity: normal
I just wanted to point at /usr/share/common-licenses/FDL in one of my
packages, but surprise, we distribute no such file in base-files.
Is there a good
Colin Watson wrote:
Perhaps it would reduce the frequency of this request if it were
mentioned in /usr/share/doc/base-files/FAQ?
Good idea. I've just added it to the FAQ.
Thanks.
Package: debian-policy
This is not a policy proposal, but a request for those of you who manage
the CVS server. Please change it so that it does not send messages like this:
From: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Those mails trigger two common spamassassin
reassign 174296 debian-policy
thanks
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Luis Bustamante wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0.6
Severity: wishlist
Under /usr/share/common-licenses I think we should provide also the
QPLv1 license. There are a lot of programs that use it and including
it in every
reassign 173737 debian-policy
thanks
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, James A. Treacy wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0.6
Severity: wishlist
As use of the GNU Free Documentation License is increasing it makes
sense to add it to the licenses in /usr/share/common-licenses.
The latest version can
reassign 172990 debian-policy
thanks
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Matt Hope wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0.2
Severity: wishlist
Could you please include the MIT licence in
/usr/share/common-licences/MIT, such as what is available from
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
I
James R. Van Zandt wrote:
Matt Swift [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
In the source package, the file ./debian/PVER-elisp.install.in
contains the lines:
ELCDIR=/usr/share/$FLAVOR/site-lisp/$PACKAGE
[...]
LOG=`tempfile`
[...]
$FLAVOR $BATCHFLAGS $PRELOADS
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Santiago What I don't understand is why those .log files have to be
created.
Because it helps me in debugging problems users may have with
my packages.
We usually turn off debugging when we are confident that things work as
they are expected to do. That's why
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] immo vero scripsit:
I'd rather document awk to be an exception to the clause
because unilaterally loosening this clause will require us
to further patch the debootstrap phase.
What do you mean? You speak as if there were lots
Anthony Towns wrote:
Santiago Vila wrote:
Several years ago it was agreed that awk would be essential (which
is currently implemented by a Depends: awk in base-files).
Err, shouldn't base-files Pre-Depends: awk? (In effect, base-files is the
Essential: yes package that provides the awk
Hello.
Several years ago it was agreed that awk would be essential (which
is currently implemented by a Depends: awk in base-files).
I think this should be reflected in policy in some way, because a lot
of people still use Depends: awk in their control fields.
Or even worse Depends: mawk | awk
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] immo vero scripsit:
This paragraph was added to fix Bug#50832 but if we follow it strictly
then all the awk packages are in violation, since they use the
alternative mechanism to update the awk symlink in /usr/awk
Yann Dirson wrote:
I couldn't find in policy 3.5.7.0 any requirement that would allow an
autobuilder to know it should call debian/rules build-arch instead
of debian/rules build, prior to call fakeroot debian/rules binary-arch.
I thought (as outlined in a related bugreport, although my words
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 05:12:52PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
If noone who is faimilar with the history and aims of this transition
has any objects, the I will upload the new debhelper tomorrow, I guess.
Sounds good. I suppose Santiago'll also be
retitle 69311 [PROPOSAL] Symlinks in /usr/doc not mandatory anymore.
thanks
[ I naively proposed something like this after the release of potato,
but it was not the right time... ].
Proposed patch to current policy:
diff -r -u debian-policy-3.5.6.1.orig/policy.sgml
Sorry, forgot to properly Cc: the bug address. Please second to the
bug address as well...
Proposed patch to current policy:
diff -r -u debian-policy-3.5.6.1.orig/policy.sgml
debian-policy-3.5.6.1/policy.sgml
--- debian-policy-3.5.6.1.orig/policy.sgml Thu Mar 14 19:17:48 2002
+++
Joey Hess wrote:
So would anyone murder me if the code in debhelper to make postinst
scripts manage /usr/doc links just went missing?
There would be reasons to murder you if you *don't* do that change ;-)
Adam Heath wrote:
/usr/info/dir was just recently moved, with dpkg 1.10. That file is
Adam Heath wrote:
Er, this symlink was just recently made. Which means all existing browsers
still use /usr/info/dir.
I don't know about the others, but the standard info reader (from the
texinfo package) supports the dir file being either in /usr/info or
/usr/share/info. It uses whichever one
Adam Heath wrote:
We first need a script to remove /usr/doc itself, and make it a symlink to
share/doc, before you start removing the debhelper code.
Otherwise, suddenly /usr/doc becomes empty, and those that access
documentation thru that location suddenly can't.
We have never released
reassign 152632 debian-policy
thanks
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Robert Millan wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0.3
Severity: wishlist
Hello!
Please could you include the GFDL license in /usr/share/common-licenses ?
I delegate the decision of including new licenses in common-licenses
to
reassign 147668 debian-policy
thanks
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0.2
Severity: wishlist
Since so many packages are linking against OpenSSL now, please include
the OpenSSL license in common-licenses [1]). OpenSSL is currently
ranking as 24th
reassign 139437 debian-policy
thanks
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Martin Quinson wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0.2
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
i've half a dozen version of the GNU Free Documentation License on my
harddisk. I think it would be a good thing to put it along with the other
reassign 122038 debian-policy
retitle 122038 Use of /var/backups is apparently undocumented
thanks
[ Sorry for taking so long to do this reassign ].
On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Lee Maguire wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0
Severity: minor
debian's use of /var/backups is apparently
reassign 123074 debian-policy
thanks
On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
Package: base-files
Currently the GFDL cannot be found in common-licenses. Not sure where
to get this license ... Add it?
Attached are the GPL and the GFDL in nroff
-man format (from the gcc HEAD sources). gcc
reassign 122817 debian-policy
severity 122817 wishlist
thanks
On 7 Dec 2001, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0
Severity: important
Tag: patch
First of all, I'm setting this bug as important due to the fact that, even
if it works as is some packages
reassign 111281 debian-policy
thanks
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Tille, Andreas wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 2.2.11
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
there seem several packages in Debian under MPL. I would consider it
a good idea if this license which can be found on
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Tille, Andreas wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Santiago Vila wrote:
I have delegated the decision of including new licenses to the policy group.
You need two seconds and no objections.
Do I have to ask explicitely for this or do they automatically handle
the problem to fix
David Coe:
Maybe this is too nitpicky, but I'd prefer we name it GPL_2
(and the LGPL variants LGPL_2 and LGPL_2.1), to be more consistent
with the way we delimit version numbers in other places.
Yes, this is too nitpicky :-)
One of the reasons we use `_' for packages is that we can use `-'
Julian Gilbey:
it's just pre-empting the existence of GPL-2.1 or GPL-3. As long as
/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL still exists, that's fine.
Ok, I have just uploaded base-files_2.2.13, in which GPL is a symlink
to GPL-2.
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Jakob B. Jensen wrote:
Suppose package X is licensed under GPL version 1 or later.
As long as this text remains on the package, each recipient has
the freedom to use it *at his/hers option* under GPL 1, 2 or 3
(or later).
Suppose by an act of packaging Debian licenses
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Andrew McMillan wrote:
My belief is that the best approach would be to have
/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL symbolically linked in a manner similar to
library versions. This will mean that someone wishing to specify a
particular version of the GPL can do so by a further
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 31-Aug-01, 10:43 (CDT), Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As of today, there is only one GPL file. In my opinion it's soon for that.
However, if you insist that this has to be done now, then please get
policy changed first. For example
[ In reply to last Manoj's message ]
Ok, let's suppose that we do things gradually, as you suggest.
[ I'm trying to delegate the decision to the policy group, if possible ]
Let's consider the following proposal:
The GPL file in base-files should better be renamed to GPL-2 and
GPL should be
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Warren Turkal wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.5.0
Severity: normal
The separate doc packages should unpack into either
/usr/share/doc/[package] or /usr/share/doc/[package]/docs.
Where do you put the copyright and changelogs?
[ Making them (by policy) to be
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 11:13:36AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Warren Turkal wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.5.0
Severity: normal
The separate doc packages should unpack into either
/usr/share/doc/[package
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.5.0
This is a repeat of bug 53849, basically. The patch is the same, with the
dates and line numbers changed:
--- policy.sgml Fri Jun 1 19:40:16 2001
+++ policy.sgml.emacstexMon Jun 25 20:58:25 2001
@@
reassign 101147 debian-policy
thanks
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, C.M. Connelly wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 2.2.8
Severity: wishlist
It would be nice if the current version of the LaTeX Project
Public License (LPPL) was included with the licenses in
/usr/share/common-licenses/.
The
Who cares about changelogs if there is no requirement that they tell
the truth?
message --
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 00:35:33 -0300
From: Nicolás Lichtmaier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: #93724: base-files: please move undocumented(7) from manpages
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:11:43AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
If there is need of a technical reason here, we need a technical
reason to forbid legitimate uploads, which is (one of the things) your
proposal would do.
What is a legitimate reason
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Summary:
Policy should disallow uploads for multiple distributions. Specifically
this means same version uploads to stable unstable.
Summary: I object.
[...]
Technical reasoning:
1) Building for stable unstable means that
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
I would like to propose that the debian/rules file is allowed to be
non-makefile. Any kind of a program that can do the required stuff can be a
debian/rules file. We shouldn't prohibit it when someone e.g. writes a short
shell script or
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
There has not been a consensus on several issues I have raised here:
what to do about cross-compiler directories? Do they belong in /usr/${arch}?
I think they do. GCC explains how to build a cross-compiler, and it
says /usr/local/${arch}, so
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.2.0
Severity: wishlist
[Following from a thread on -mentors]
The question: can you have a default configuration file in
/usr/share/doc which is copied by the postinst to /etc if it does not
yet exist?
On Mon,
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Section 12.6: the para which currently reads:
The mail spool is `/var/spool/mail' and the interface to send a mail
message is `/usr/sbin/sendmail' (as per the FHS). ...
should be changed to:
The mail spool is `/var/mail' and the
Julian Gilbey wrote:
Santiago Vila wrote:
There is no current practice yet, really.
I propose two different ways to do the freeze:
1. Create frozen between testing and unstable,
initially as a copy of testing.
2. Create frozen between testing and unstable,
initially as a copy
Julian Gilbey wrote:
During the run-up to a release, will testing become frozen, or
will we have four versions: stable, frozen, testing (continuously
changing), unstable? We should modify the policy document to describe
the current practice.
There is no current practice yet, really.
I
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 05:22:59PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
If you convince the ftp.debian.org maintainers to fix *all* the bugs
(not only those of important severity), fine.
This isn't just a matter of having the ftpmasters finally get around
reassign 79538 debian-policy
reassign 79541 debian-policy
thanks
I am being suggested to include the GNU Free Documentation License and
the Apache License into /usr/share/common-licenses in base-files.
I think adding new licenses to base-files is a decision which is not
to be made by myself and
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
On 23 Aug 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Woody shall have a full /usr/share/doc/ when released, while
allowing for partial upgrades from potato all the way, under the
plan.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 02:03:06PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote
On 23 Aug 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Woody shall have a full /usr/share/doc/ when released, while
allowing for partial upgrades from potato all the way, under the
plan.
The partial upgrades issue is a myth. As I said, we have never
guaranteed that *every* conceivable partial
On 22 Aug 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I see woody release and making not having docs in
/usr/share/doc/pkg as an RC bug as being the stick that shall
ensuer compliance (I currently have 170 packages on *my* machine that
are not compliant).
__ zgrep ^usr/doc Contents-i386.gz |
On 20 Aug 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What is wrong with the plan currently in place?
It will slow down the goal of FHS compliance (inclusing an empty
/usr/doc) even more.
I thought the plan was that for each given Debian distribution, we
should be telling our users to look for docs in a
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 10:25:28AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Mike Markley wrote:
A dependency on non-us will also land a package in contrib.
I think there was a proposal
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Now that potato has been released, I propose that we start deprecating
the /usr/doc compatibility symlinks, at the same time we make
using /usr/share/doc a nearly-release-goal for woody.
The idea is, assuming this proposal is accepted:
* We modify
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 01:02:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
There are still several scripts in Debian which depend on /usr/bin/nawk.
All of them should work with /usr/bin/awk.
So I guess we should require them to be /usr/bin/awk.
Yes, that's
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 01:32:16PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
I've just read through the virtual packages list, and there's barely a
virtual package which either doesn't do this already, for example awk
says:
awk Anything
On Wed, 24 May 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 10:04:04AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
My original statement: we should document the APIs provided by
virtual packages.
My modified statement in light of all the feedback I've gotten: we
should document whatever common
On Tue, 23 May 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Is there a really good reason why we shouldn't have long package names?
dpkg -l, but this is not a really good reason :-)
Hi.
I made a proposal to change the mail spool from mail.mail to root.mail.
Still looking for seconds.
Those who think root.mail is wrong should perhaps make a counter-proposal
which adds a suitable rationale for using mail.mail (is there a rationale
for that?).
I wonder how would we deal with
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Ian Jackson wrote:
[...]
I've now done a bit of research about this, prompted by the fact that
when I visited -policy in my newsreader today for the first time in a
few days there seemed to be very little of any use and a lot of noise.
[...]
Since I'm in part
close 62946
reopen 62946
severity normal
retitle 62946 [AMENDMENT 24-04-2000] Update for new non-US layout
thanks
Here is the patch, including Josip's correction:
diff -r -u debian-policy-3.1.1.1.orig/policy.sgml
debian-policy-3.1.1.1/policy.sgml
--- debian-policy-3.1.1.1.orig/policy.sgml
close 62947
reopen 62947
severity normal
retitle 62947 [AMENDMENT 25-04-2000] s/debian-devel/debian-legal/
thanks
Here is the patch:
diff -r -u debian-policy-3.1.1.1.orig/policy.sgml
debian-policy-3.1.1.1/policy.sgml
--- debian-policy-3.1.1.1.orig/policy.sgml Mon Nov 15 16:04:59 1999
+++
close 62948
reopen 62948
severity normal
retitle 62948 [AMENDMENT 25-04-2000] s/bash/base-files/
thanks
Here is the patch:
diff -r -u debian-policy-3.1.1.1.orig/policy.sgml
debian-policy-3.1.1.1/policy.sgml
--- debian-policy-3.1.1.1.orig/policy.sgml Mon Nov 15 16:04:59 1999
+++
severity 62668 wishlist
thanks
Well, let's make a proposal for this also:
Current Policy, 5.6, states:
The mail spool is 2775 mail.mail, and MUAs need to be setgid mail to
do the locking mentioned above [...]
AFAIK, we have never followed this, and I have not received any reports
against
Package: debian-policy
Version: potato
Severity: wishlist
Policy 2.1.6, Further copyright considerations says:
[...]
When in doubt, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Be prepared
to provide us with the copyright statement.
Since the debian-legal mailing list exists and it was specifically
Package: debian-policy
Version: potato
Severity: wishlist
Policy 3.9 Environment variables says:
[...]
Furthermore, as /etc/profile is a configuration file of the bash
package, no other package may put any environment variables or other
commands into that file.
s/bash/base-files/
close 61308
reopen 61308
severity 61308 normal
retitle [AMMENDMENT 22/04/2000] About the use of conffiles
Summary:
Current policy 4.7.3 says:
Configuration file handling must conform to the following behavior:
* local changes must be preserved during a package upgrade
*
Final rewording:
I propose that we modify paragraph in Policy 4.7.3 by adding the only
word, so that it reads as follows:
The easy way to achieve this behavior is to make the configuration
file a conffile. This is only appropriate if it is possible to distribute a
default version that
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 10:36:04AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
file a conffile. This is only appropriate if it is possible to
distribute a
[...]
It would be more grammatical to say appropriate only rather than only
appropriate, since what
reassign 35504 base-files
retitle 35504 /var/log should be 755 and root.root
severity 35504 fixed
thanks
[ fixed in base-files_2.1.20 ].
I consider this proposal rejected, because there has been a formal
objection and no seconds.
I think I was interpreting Wichert's words too much literally:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
It's already in violation of policy. From section 4.7.3:
The other way to do it is to via the maintainer scripts. In this case,
the configuration file must not be listed as a conffile and must not be
part of the package distribution.
[...]
I
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
The /var/log directory should have permissions 2775 (group-writable and
set-group-id) and be owned by root.adm.
Why group writeable?
Good question. These are the permissions Bruce Perens gave to the /var/log
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 12:02:18PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Proposal: (to be inserted into an appropriate place in the policy docs)
The /var/log directory should have permissions 2775 (group-writable and
set-group-id
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Seth R Arnold wrote:
* Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000329 01:47]:
---
The /var/log directory should have permissions 2755 (set-group-id)
and be owned by root.adm
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
Severity: wishlist
The following proposal tries to address cases like Bug #34294.
\begin{proposal}
Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
\end{proposal}
Rationale: We should try to reduce prompting to a minimum during upgrades.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:10:54PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
\begin{proposal}
Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
\end{proposal}
What is a `text database' ? That term seems very unclear to me; but
based
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:47:10PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
\begin{proposal}
Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
\end{proposal}
What is a `text database' ? That term seems very unclear to me; but
based
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
I think this proposal is silly: for something like the cases you
mention, it is obvious that they should not be conffiles, but should
be created by the postinst if they do not already exist. It would
clearly be very stupid for these to be conffiles.
On 27 Mar 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This is my take on the subject. An user should not need to
know about /usr/share/doc; mentioning it, espescially with the
wording that implies that one needs look into both dirs to be sure,
is exactly the kind of user interface lossage we
reassign 35504 debian-policy
retitle 35504 [PROPOSAL] Permissions of /var/log.
severity 35504 wishlist
thanks
Some time ago I asked about permissions of /var/log, it's time to do
something about it.
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
How do we want
On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 07:30:39PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
I've long felt that one big failing of the policy manual is that it does not
include any text describing the rationale behind the rules in it.
That's because people like Santiago Vila
On 25 Jan 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
reassign 47298 debian-policy
thanks
Hi,
If this is a bug, then it needs to be fixed for all packages,
not just libcgi-perl.
Marc Due to lack of space on the main partition, I moved /usr/doc to
Marc some other partition (let's call
Hello.
Some files in /var/log are root.adm, while some others are root.root.
How do we want these files to be?
a) All of them should be root.root.
b) All of them should be root.adm.
c) This should not be covered by policy.
I would like to hear opinions about this.
Thanks.
--
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
How do we want these files to be?
a) All of them should be root.root.
b) All of them should be root.adm.
c) This should not be covered by policy.
I would say c) and let common sense decide. Generally
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
Do we really have to discuss this again? We asked the technical
committee some time ago to decide how to smoothly migrate from
/usr/doc to /usr/share/doc and the decision was that every package has
to provide /usr/doc/package in potato (either as a
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
+Since dpkg will upgrade other packages while an _essential_
This will should be really may.
+package is in an unconfigured state, all _essential_ packages must
+supply all their core functionality even when
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
No. depend includes Pre-Depends, [...]
Ooops! You are right.
--
cdfdd1fe6bf1e8b667d6507e233f92ae (a truly random sig)
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Joel Klecker wrote:
At 14:42 +0200 1999-10-27, Santiago Vila wrote:
I doubt gcc works without ldso ;-)
Sure it does, it's not a libc5 executable.
Ooops! I forgot that libc6 uses its own dynamic linker.
Why is ldso still essential, then?
Maybe it should be just
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
How about:
Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values
(excluding build-time dependencies). If this should happen, one of
the priority values will have to be adapted.
Maybe the fully correct wording would be:
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 10:56:45PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
in C or C++. The required packages are called _build-essential_, and an
informational list will be published separately from this document.
I don't see that list.
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 03:50:06AM -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
ldso ?
Do you need this to compile a Hello World?
I doubt gcc works without ldso ;-)
[ Every required-and-essential package should be included in the list,
because a broken
reopen 34223
severity 34223 normal
thanks
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Santiago indicated a contradiction between APT's behaviour and the
packaging manual. Santiago: could you suggest a rewording of the
packaging manual which would resolve this issue?
Simple answer: No, this is
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Given that there are now two sorts of depends, I am changing the
paragraph:
Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values. If
this should happen, one of the priority values will have to be
adapted.
to read:
Binary
On 22 Sep 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
No, it implies that creating these unnecessary, redundant, and
arguably just-plain-*wrong* directories is *more* support than the
whole /opt tree needs or deserves. :-p ;-)
Basically, while it may be a form of support, I think it's crossing
the line
On 5 Sep 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Unless someone else volunteers, I could come up with a
suggested language to be included in policy. It would be
updated with Raul's suggestions about not making all current packages
instantly buggy, and allowing the FSSTND conforming
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 08:12:20AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
It was my understanding that this situation could be resolved in the same
fashion that the man and info transitions were. By making the docs viewing
programs aware of both the old and new
101 - 200 of 430 matches
Mail list logo
