-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 14 Jan 1998, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, now that the Debian ports generate a lot of postings in
debian-devel-changes, I think it is time to split that list by
architecture.
Why
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I agree that the proposed text is better than nothing, but it is still too
weak.
Even if we keep upstream source numbers untouched, it would be a good
thing to encourage upstream authors to use -MM-DD because it
is an ISO standard for dates.
Therefore we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[ moving to debian-policy ]
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
Christian Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] However, this address has to be unique for all packages of
that maintainer to simplify our tools. Unfortunately, not all
maintainers comply with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
[...] doc-debian containing the FAQ (not much bugs, but the
FAQ is actually orphaned)...
I now maintain the FAQ, just that I have not had time to do my first
maintainer release...
BTW: Before, I agreed with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Well, as Christian Schwarz has pointed out to me (and I agree), it would
be better to postpone this debate until the new uploading procedure is
approved and installed (see the next policy weekly posting).
Thanks.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hello.
Marco Budde has asked me to add dhelp support in debmake (he even sent me
patches), but there is a doc-base package planned for Debian 2.1. Since it
seems that doc-base and dhelp will have very similar goals, I don't think
it is a good idea to support
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Well, now that the Debian ports generate a lot of postings in
debian-devel-changes, I think it is time to split that list by
architecture.
Two proposals:
1. The easy one: Use debian-devel-changes for source packages, i386
packages, and binary-all packages, as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Kai, the discussion already ended (I think), but now that you ask, I
would like to answer:
Policy says so because they are useful to modify. What is so hard to
understand about this?
I failed to see why some people can say they are *all* useful to modify
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
The policy does not explain why they should *all* be conffiles.
I can think of a reason to modify almost any /etc/init.d/* script, on the
grounds that they effect the startup behavior of the system.
/sbin/init
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This came from bug #16058.
Policy Manual 3.4.5 says:
Do not include the /etc/rcn.d/* symbolic links in dpkg's conffiles
list! This will cause problems! Do, however, include the /etc/init.d
scripts in conffiles.
However, it does not say why
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 11 Dec 1997, Guy Maor wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) writes:
If someone would prototype the changes that X needs and send them to
me, I'd appreciate it
Same goes for me and /etc/inputrc.
Related question: Current bash is patched to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Yann Dirson wrote:
I remember there once was some discussion about whether/where to
install HTML docs created from .texi files. If I remember well, we
mostly agreed that we should install them in a subdirectory of the
package's doc dir, but nobody took a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Mark Baker wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila Doncel) writes:
Yes, bash is essential because we always *need* a POSIX shell. But GNU
bash provides *two* of them: /bin/sh and /bin/bash. Only /bin/sh should
be essential.
However, dangling symlinks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Ian Jackson wrote:
What the people who want to make bash nonessential are asking is to
further restrict the facilities available to such programs, in a way
that may make life very difficult for people.
make life very difficult is an exaggeration.
bash is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Ian Jackson:
In order to do system integration successfully we must define
standards that our own components adhere to so that everything is
compatible with the other parts of our system. There is no absolute
requirement that anything we do be compatible
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Santiago I want to change the policy. I think bash should not be
Santiago essential.
Manoj Why?
Because this seems to be the only way of encouraging #!/bin/sh
in favour of #!/bin/bash...
Manoj Do we have any alternatives?
Currently, maybe not.
In fact,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Because this seems to be the only way of encouraging #!/bin/sh
in favour of #!/bin/bash...
Sorry, against #!/bin/bash, I meant, of course
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 13 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
Santiago Vila Doncel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In fact, I am not worried by the fact that bash is essential or not.
I am worried by the fact that so many packages depend on it.
I suggest you file bugs on those which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 13 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
Santiago Vila Doncel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suggest you file bugs on those which needlessly do.
Well, will they be legitimate as `wishlist' bugs? Or they will be
refused by saying I don't think
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
James Troup:
How does one satisfy the need for an essential POSIX bourne shell with
multiple possibilities?
Having a virtual package tagged as essential.
You, surely, *must* have at least one POSIX bourne shell marked as
essential, otherwise people can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Rob Browning wrote:
Santiago Vila Doncel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So if we have to admit bashisms in debian/rules, we are in fact saying
Debian packages will always be for Debian/Linux distributions.
No, we are saying that you need bash on any Debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Ian Jackson wrote:
If you want to change the policy and say that bash shouldn't be
essential then please come to debian-policy and we'll talk about it.
I want to change the policy. I think bash should not be essential.
It might be worth considering how many
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I don't see very elegant to modify changelog syntax.
Another idea: In addition to hello_1.3-14_i386.changes we could have
hello_1.3-14_i386.closes, following a very simple syntax:
1234
5678
9012
etc.
This way everybody could use their favourite parsing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 29 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
Surely we can come to a consensus on something this trivial?
Ok,
foo (1.0-2) unstable; urgency=low; closes=10002,11930,10109
seems fine to me (using ; after =low).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
Lalo Martins wrote:
Maybe we could come up with a transition path - like moving
stuff like /usr/doc (less prone to make the system break) and
then symlinking ln -s /usr/share/doc /usr/doc
Yes, make this symlink (ln -s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 24 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
We shall consider upstream sources using 2-digit years as
an oddity. This is not a bug, but we wish it were changed
upstream. No action or bug report is justified, though.
Unreported bugs are never forwarded
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 25 Oct 1997, Ian Jackson wrote:
No. It is not for us to determine what the upstream version number
scheme should be (though we can say what we might like), and since it
is our policy to try to keep the upstream version number intact as
much as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 22 Oct 1997, Jim Pick wrote:
444 Oct 22 14:49 README
17506 Oct 22 14:42 hello_1.3-13.1_i386.deb
4306 Oct 22 14:53 src-deb-hello_1.3-1.1_all.deb
88758 Oct 22 14:54 src-orig-hello_1.3-1_all.deb
[ ... ]
drwxr-xr-x jim/jim 0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 24 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Santiago This should be considered as a bug (wishlist),
I object. This versioning scheme may need *one* epoch, in the
year 2000, if and only if the upstream author continues with the
version scheme then (the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[I'm moving this to debian-policy]
On 1 Oct 1997, Guy Maor wrote:
Santiago Vila Doncel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[About zip and unzip moved to non-free]
They are still in bo (main).
I'm going to reopen this bug.
There were a _lot_ of package
401 - 430 of 430 matches
Mail list logo
