Bug#1816: dvipsk recommends psfonts
Package: dvipsk Version: 5.58f-3 Package: dvipsk Recommends: psfonts However, no psfonts package appears to be available. Looks like it should recommend 'texpsfnt'. Ray -- LOGIC The principle governing human intellection. Its nature may be deduced from examining the two following propositions, both of which are held by human beings to be true and often by the same people: 'I can't so you mustn't', and 'I can but you mustn't.' - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
ldconfig not found, bad path
Hi all,
I had a slightly corrupted profile for root yesterday in which the
path wasn't set for the sbin directory's (/sbin, /usr/sbin). Because
of this an `ldconfig' command from some {pre,post}{inst,rm} script
wasn't succesfull. Can we solve this?
Adding the path for the command to be executed: /usr/sbin/ldconfig.
Temporary modifications of the path in {pre,post}{inst,rm} script:
PATH=/sbin:/usr/sbin:$PATH.
Temporary modifications of the path from dpkg and friends.
Don't anticipate on this and assume I'm the only one who's stupid
enough to corrupt his profile.
Erick
--
Erick [EMAIL PROTECTED] +31-10-4635142
Department of General Surgery (Intensive Care) University Hospital Rotterdam NL
Re: [bcwhite@bnr.ca: New Packages-Master]
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 11:06:00 -0500 From: brian (b.c.) white [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New Packages-Master I noticed that the Packages-Master file now has a filename: field. I'm curious about what will happen when (if?) you create seperate directories for different releases of Debian. The Packages-Master file will contain information about the `released' system. It is simply the concatenation of debian-current/Packages, contrib/Packages and non-free/Packages. It is intended mainly for human consumption. Certainly anything that is trying to locate packages or list those available should use the individual Packages files under debian-0.93, debian-1.0, contrib and non-free. Also, Packages-Master does not seem to have all the packages listed within it. Though I have not checked it fully, at least the experimental packages are not included. Since this is the Master, I think all should be included. Selection programs such as 'dftp' can hide packages from the user very easily, if so desired, but it is very hard to include them if the information is not readily available in the first place. That's right, the experimental packages are not included. We need a directory where we can just dump things that are experimental and don't want to be included in the various automatic lists of things - and project/experimental is it. Bleeding edge packages should go in the bleeding edge tree, which has its own Packages file. If people feel that those packages should be listed in Packages-Master too I'm open to comments, but I'd be inclined to suggest that we don't want to encourage people who don't know what they're doing to use that tree. Ian.
Re: RFC: A default html file
Ian Jackson writes: Ian Why can't we just stick with `doc' containing both sets of Ian documentation ? Is there any point in splitting the package up ? Having two packages permits the user to select the one she wants. There might be people who can live without the HOWTOs or the Debian doc. I get a 'du' of around 1.2 megabyte for the new sets of HOWTO plus the Linux-FAQ I will package. If we add the Debian manual to that, we get quite a voluminous package. Ian There is IMO nothing wrong with dashes in the filenames. Yes, and they are more readable. Ian If we put a simple default file containing mainly links in Ian /etc/debian.html then the user can edit it without having it Ian overwritten, and can change what their browsers see without Ian reconfiguring them all. That was my idea. Put such a (small) file there now so that future releases of the browsers can use it for setting the default page. Ian A better solution would be to make it possible to reconfigure all Ian browsers' home pages at once. Are you proposing that a 'whatever' doc package reconfigures the browsers? I'd be afraid of quite some side-effects and surprises. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd
Bug#1830: version of doc behind linuxdoc package
Package: linuxdoc-sgml Version: 1.2-2 The /usr/doc/linuxdoc-sgml/guide.* files are from version 1.1. See: guide.sgml: This guide documents Linuxdoc-SGML version 1.1. I suggest the package is upgraded to version 1.4. Thanks. Guido Witmond -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP 2.6.2i keyid 1024/3D4A7B29
Bug#1643: ld gets fatal eror when linking for profiling
[Reminder: ld fails when gcc is used with both -g and -lm flags] I'm surprised no one else is complaining about this bug since it really hinders software development under Debian. For anyone who is interested, one solution is just to install the experimental elf-gcc package. This one works fine for me! :-) --Mike
Re: RFC: A default html file
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] daid, regarding doclinux and docdebian: Why can't we just stick with `doc' containing both sets of documentation ? Is there any point in splitting the package up ? I like the idea of separate docs collections for vanilla linux and for incremental debian issues added to vanilla linux. Also, splitting them up allows the work to be split between two maintainers if that turns out to be convenient (as it might be, since maintianing the linux docs would seem to involve collecting and packaging them, and maintaining the debian docs might involve writing or editing some of them).
Re: RFC: A default html file
Dirk Eddelbuettel writes [SuperCite undone]: Ian Jackson writes, answering a question of mine: No. I suppose I'm suggesting that the browser packages use a shared file like /etc/default-www-home or something, in much the same way as other packages use /etc/mailname, /etc/news/server and /etc/papersize. Exactly. Several people, me included, have proposed similar schemes. Could the maintainers for WWW programs please join the debate? Shall such a file be part of a 'doc-debian' package? No, the file shouldn't be part of any package - it should be created by the postinst of the first package that needs it. It should not be included in any package, even as a conffile. In any case, you wouldn't want to make all the WWW browsers depend on debian-doc or whatever. Ian.
