On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 11:43:05PM -0500, John R. Daily wrote:
As largely irrelevant data points, my 1955 edition of the Oxford
Universal, the 2nd edition of the Random House unabridged,
Webster's 3rd New International, and the 1952 New Century
dictionaries concur that dependancy is
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:37:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
wrote:
You are wrong here. Sample:
- I want to provide a package with a lot of useful bash functions/aliases
w/o
changing any program
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:19:23AM -0500, John R. Daily wrote:
Possible reasons for mandating policy: insuring interoperability,
consistency, functionality, and desire to be a fascist jerk.
Why assume the latter when the first three are valid, and
valuable to boot?
Because the first three
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:11:06AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:37:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
wrote:
You are wrong here. Sample:
- I want to provide a
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
...
If you want every package to use debconf, that's fine and wonderful. Go
make a list of the ones that don't, write patches so that they will, file
bugs so the maintainer knows about them, then have a friendly discussion
with the maintainers to make
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:16:15PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
- a package has it's documentation in /usr/doc
- the maintainer gets a patch how to change it
- the maintainer refuses the patch I want to have the documentation in
/usr/doc.
- a package doesn't use debconf for interaction with
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:22:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
And thanks to this stupid MUST thing in policy everyone's wasting their
time trying to figure out how to force people to do things, instead of
making sure that there's absolutely no reason why they wouldn't want to.
Trouble is,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:02:25PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:22:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
And thanks to this stupid MUST thing in policy everyone's wasting their
time trying to figure out how to force people to do things, instead of
making sure that there's
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:41:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Sure there's something you can do: forward it on to -devel, try to make
sure it's clear what (if anything) the maintainer and you think the issues
are, and try to come to some sort of consensus about what should be done.
Of
On Monday, December 10, 2001 9:46 AM, Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course. Thing is that that's an awful lot of hassle and rather
offputting so people still want that big stick that would save them
grinding through it for stuff that really ought to be obvious.
Do you not agree that
(Taking this off-line.)
Well, had you read through the note properly, you would have
noticed that Webster's 3rd does recognize it, while the 2nd
doesn't; it's a pretty safe bet that the 3rd came after the
2nd. :-)
IIRC, the 2nd was proscriptive, and the 3rd descriptive, with
many purists
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 07:10:54AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you not agree that because of the reasons already identified, particularly:
* debconf is still relatively young
I'm talking about the general trend towards people wanting to put
everything sensible in policy irrespective of
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at Monday, December 10, 2001 10:33 AM, Mark Brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you not agree that because of the reasons already identified,
particularly:
* debconf is still relatively young
I'm talking about the general trend towards people wanting to put
everything
aj You don't need an excuse to not mandate something, you need a damn
aj good reason to mandate, and a huge amount of current practice to
aj support it.
Is the reason given by OP not damn good enough?
And is the overwhelming majority of interactive scripts that _do_ use
debconf already not a
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 03:27:17AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Daniel Stone wrote:
Oh, and also bear one thing in mind: the virtual host name (e.g. foobar
in /var/vhosts/foobar) may not have any correlation to the hostname,
domain, or whatever. So, please don't assume it does.
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:22:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
And thanks to this stupid MUST thing in policy everyone's wasting their
time trying to figure out how to force people to do things, instead of
making sure that there's absolutely no
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:56:51AM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
aj You don't need an excuse to not mandate something, you need a damn
aj good reason to mandate, and a huge amount of current practice to
aj support it.
Is the reason given by OP not damn good enough?
No, not really. When we can
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 02:46:17PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:41:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Sure there's something you can do: forward it on to -devel, try to make
sure it's clear what (if anything) the maintainer and you think the issues
are, and try to come
18 matches
Mail list logo
