On 20.10.10 13:28, Simon McVittie wrote:
Quoting from base-passwd again:
Allows users to add local modifications to the system (/usr/local, /home)
without needing root privileges. Compare with group 'adm', which is more
related to monitoring/security.
Note that the ability
On 17.09.10 10:59, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Vincent Bernatber...@debian.org schrieb:
Wait a minute! Arbitrary _users_ should never try to rebuild anything
on a stable/production system. As soon as you're attempting that,
you're stepping into the package maintainer or developer role, and
then
On 09.09.2010 11:58, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 11:40:49 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
with GNUmed we currently have a case where a bug is not RC regarding the
computer system and would not match our criterion of RC bugs. However,
the influence of this bug might harm the health
On 07.09.2010 11:17, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
On Tuesday 07 September 2010 10:47:08 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Oh, please. If you want to setup such schemes, why would you not want to
spend 5 minutes to configure apache or lighttpd instead of spending at
least the same time to configure such an
On 31.08.2010 22:47, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:59:04AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The debian-ctte list is a historically special case. I don't believe that
it should be; I'm on plenty of other Debian mailing lists and find the
common spam filtering more than adequate.
On 30.08.2010 21:06, D M German wrote:
After my presentation at DebConf this year I was pointed to your efforts
on the Patch Tagging Guidelines.
One thing I believe would be useful is if the patch included a
license. The simplest license would be Same as patched code but it
will clarify it.
On 27.08.2010 08:30, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:22:08AM +0200, posion bit wrote:
I've just started my love history again with squeeze.
There are 38 unquoted $i in /etc in i386 installing base+laptop+standar
There are 172 $i (maching without spaces around) 38 of them
On 27.08.2010 10:09, posion bit wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Adam Borowskikilob...@angband.pl wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:30:07AM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:22:08AM +0200, posion bit wrote:
There are 38 unquoted $i in /etc in i386 installing
On 27.08.2010 10:34, posion bit wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Samuel Thibaultsthiba...@debian.org wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi, le Fri 27 Aug 2010 10:21:06 +0200, a écrit :
On 27.08.2010 10:09, posion bit wrote:
look one so simple in /etc/init.d/rc
for i
On 27.08.2010 10:27, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi, le Fri 27 Aug 2010 10:21:06 +0200, a écrit :
On 27.08.2010 10:09, posion bit wrote:
look one so simple in /etc/init.d/rc
for i in /etc/rc$runlevel.d/K$level*
do
On 27.08.2010 12:29, posion bit wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Josselin Mouettej...@debian.org wrote:
Le vendredi 27 août 2010 à 11:57 +0200, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
Not if I have a /etc/rc2.d/K03my damn daemon
Which is again the debian rules and the LSB rules about
naming the
On 16.08.2010 01:22, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:00:23 -0700 Steve Langasekvor...@debian.org
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 06:30:04PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
By the early 1990s this was long since unneeded but people
continued to do it anyway, and in fact started to
On 08/11/2010 06:47 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Russ Allbery writes (Notes from the DebConf Source Format BoF):
* Part of Joey's motivation is that if you look at GitHub, the
people using it a lot consider Git to be a source package format,
I've been doing that for some non-Debian work. It
On 07/21/2010 11:31 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
IMHO this is worth another thread how to make Debian more attractive for
users ...
I think it is bugous to ask such question.
IMHO we should care about improving Debian, going toward the perfection,
not about increasing the number of users
On 22.07.2010 10:38, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:28:36AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
IMHO we should care about improving Debian, going toward the perfection,
not about increasing the number of users (which should
be a nice secondary effect).
So you have even found
On 20.07.2010 17:26, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
The popularity-contest package also work fine with relatime.
Thanks for bringing this up. I guess we should look at the FAQ or
something to make it clear on this point. Where did you get the idea
that popcon don't work with noatime?
I don't
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:41:49PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
Anyone got any idea how to can get more machines to report to
popcon.debian.org? Or can there be some other problem causing the
fall in the number of submissions?
I mount filesystem with noatime (at home and on my
On 15.07.2010 21:34, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 20:15 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
No, and there doesn't need to be. Now can you stop beating this dead
horse? It would like to rot in hell unharmed.
Wow,... supposing that you speak for Debian,... this reaction is
On 14.07.2010 17:36, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Hi.
I wonder why this never came up before,.. or did it an I'm just blind?
I've just read parts of POSIX, where echo is more or less deprecated in
favour of printf
On 15.07.2010 14:31, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 12:09 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
System initialisation and in general system script are outside POSIX
scope, as well many common command executed by such scripts
(administration tools are also outside POSIX
On 05.03.2010 15:10, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Harald Braumann, le Fri 05 Mar 2010 15:06:28 +0100, a écrit :
I'd like to propose a `sensible-mailer' command.
Well, there is /etc/alternatives/mailx
It is a different things (IMHO).
mailx is used to send mail (POSIX way),
mailto: means to open a
On 05.03.2010 15:18, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 05 mars 2010 à 15:06 +0100, Harald Braumann a écrit :
I'd like to propose a `sensible-mailer' command. The main usage would
be to handle `mailto' links. But maybe such functionality already exists
and I'm just not aware of it, or there
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 14 novembre 2009 à 17:42 +0100, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [091114 17:26]:
I guess you mean as long as there is no negociation between gdm and
whatever decides where gettys go?
GDM does try to use a VT that is not currently
There are two problems:
- kernel versions
- configuration of kernel
The first one is a nightmare to solve properly and IMHO we
can still require some brain and manual tweak of admins.
One solution is to have (like old modutils and kernel modules)
different programs for different kernels, but
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 19:30 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca writes:
I agree with Charles: this is unncessary, unproductive busy-work.
The same characterisation could be given to other changes that raise the
quality of software in Debian (e.g.
Abou Al Montacir wrote:
Le mardi 29 septembre 2009 à 13:21 +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Reinhard Tartler siret...@debian.org wrote:
Would you consider this a blocker to inclusion into Debian? Upstream may
either release very slowly or may just not care about
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:51:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
What I'm trying to discuss here is that Debian Developers who package
their own software as Debian native packages should be allowed to do so
Hi Wouter and everybody,
it seems to me that the
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:22:30AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
We have a lot of troubles when upstreams ship a debian/ directory
in upstream tarball, thus I'll expect derivatives will have similar
problems
I don't
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 08 septembre 2009 à 13:00 +0200, Bjørn Mork a écrit :
Trusting a library to do all your error handling and cleanup is not good
style IMHO. In addition to the lack of self-documenting source, it
often leave you with the meaningless generic error messages some
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I also would rather have a native package in Debian and then have
Debian derivatives convert the package using Debians tar.gz as
orig.tar.gz and put their derivate specific changes into diff.gz.
Shipping a source with 0 byte diff.gz in Debian seems stupid and
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 04:36:53PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 07 septembre 2009 à 13:40 +0200, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
For the record: Noone sane would replace g_strdup_printf with snprintf,
but with asprintf.
Case 1:
char *foo;
if
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 12:59:10AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
The issue was raised by the udev upstream maintainer along with the udev
package maintainers of the major distributions, who all agreed that this
configuration is not supported.
FYI, udev 146 ships usb-id and
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 02 septembre 2009 à 22:30 +0200, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
/usr was on seperate filesystems for decades and some 3733t broken by design
Desktop utility turns around old Unix paradigms? I dont get it ...
Since when is udev a desktop utility?
hmm. udev
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 31, md wrote:
The issue was raised by the udev upstream maintainer along with the udev
package maintainers of the major distributions, who all agreed that this
configuration is not supported.
FYI, udev 146 ships usb-id and pci-id programs which read
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 01 septembre 2009 à 10:32 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen a écrit :
In Debian, /usr/ is allowed to be on NFS.
So is /.
I was thinking the same, but #441291 (root over nfs) is still open.
ciao
cate
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Jonas Meurer wrote:
do we really consider to stop support for seperate /usr? after all fhs
supports seperate /usr by design. [1]
i hope that we keep fhs compability within debian.
I agree, but the problem is how?.
Moving too much thinkgs from /usr to / is also against
the design of FHS, thus i
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 31, md wrote:
The issue was raised by the udev upstream maintainer along with the udev
package maintainers of the major distributions, who all agreed that this
configuration is not supported.
FYI, udev 146 ships usb-id and pci-id programs which read
Harsha s.v. Banavasi wrote:
dear sir/madam
I am Harsha, i have written device driver pgm(1553 communication device)
in redhat linux 2.4 kernel which is running fine. Now My boss asked
Patrick Matthäi wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
MJ Ray schrieb:
Patrick Matthäi pmatth...@debian.org wrote:
GeoIP is a quite usefull library for geolocation.
It has got a stable ABI/API and upstream is normaly very helpfull with
patches and issues.
[...]
Currently I see
Josselin Mouette wrote:
It is never pointed out enough that the core packaging teams are
seriously understaffed. Please, before uploading your pet package to the
archive, consider joining one of the packaging teams looking for more
maintainers: eglibc, Mozilla, KDE, GNOME, Xfce, Utopia, Apache,
Luca Falavigna wrote:
Marco Gaiarin ha scritto:
Compilato e funziona... che strada è bene che percorra per far
rientrare questo pacchetto in debian?
Siccome la debianizzazione è un po' vecchiotta, probabilmente avrà
bisogno di un'aggiustatina per renderla conforme ai nuovi standard, in
ogni
Bastian Blank wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 09:40:35PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article 20090811183800.ge5...@const.famille.thibault.fr you wrote:
Not necessarily. Any sane implementation should just use wchar_t
Which could be UTF16 and therefore still has complicatd length
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Hi,
the question in the subject may sound a bit naive, but I’m starting to
wonder why we still set the Standards-Version in package control files.
AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Timur Birsh wrote:
Hello Debian Developers,
I've recently uploaded (thanks to Bart Martens for sponsoring) my first
package and want to adopt the next one. It's cd-discid [1]. Its
debian/control file contains the Conflicts field. This package
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Timur Birsh wrote:
Hello Debian Developers,
I've recently uploaded (thanks to Bart Martens for sponsoring) my
first package and want to adopt the next one. It's cd-discid [1]. Its
debian/control file contains
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 08:16 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
AIUI, this header is here to indicate which version of the policy the
package is supposed to conform to. This way, we have a way to enforce
which policy versions are supported, e.g. in a stable release,
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I do not have a strong opinion about this, apart from the fact
that it must be present in the sources when someone is looking to
update the package, and it should be accessible before downloading all
the sources.
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 05:39:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:28:58PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
About freeze timing we think that DebConf should definitely not fall
into a freeze
We noticed that releases in the first quarter of the year
worked
Hello,
I've a problem designing a boot script, and I find no example.
The problem:
- Logitech G15 (and like) USB keyboards have a LCD display and few
(or lots) extra keys
- g15daemon is a deamon need to handle the display, and to handle the
extra keys in xorg (xkb-data (=
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 11, Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org wrote:
- How to handle the common case: keyboard is already attached
(daemon is in /usr filesystem), with udev.
cd /lib/udev/
. ./hotplug.functions
wait_for_file /dev/log
Thanks. I was looking for such function since
Samuel Thibault wrote:
Gunnar Wolf, le Tue 11 Aug 2009 13:28:08 -0500, a écrit :
while length(str) in any language up to the 1990s was a mere
substraction, now we must go through the string checking each byte to
see if it is a Unicode marker and substract the appropriate number of
bytes.
Thomas Koch wrote:
Hi,
I've an issue, that I forgot to set the character encoding of tomcat to utf-8
after reinstalling a server.
Now, before I report a wishlist(?) bug to tomcat, I want to ask (and invite to
discuss) shouldn't utf8 be the default character set everywhere? So when
installing
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:45:00PM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
The point, rather, seems to be that unified-diff format is the de facto
standard format for exchanging patch information.
Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:53:21AM +0200, Michael Banck a écrit :
It's the preferred
Siggy Brentrup wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:28 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 08:24, Siggy Brentrupdeb...@psycho.i21k.de wrote:
And if for whatever reason somebody wants to see your list disfunctional,
you open an easy way to do so by implementing a bot that reports
Vincent Danjean wrote:
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
I see that .bzip2 and .lzma are also supported compression methods for the 3.0
(native) format as well as for the binary packages. But I do not think it would
be useful to add zip to this list. It seems to me that the
Eugene Gorodinsky wrote:
Hi all
I've read the debian news announcement today
(http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20090730). What got me very
interested was the part about a new package format
There are two changes: one about the source package format
(a true format change) and about binary
Eugene Gorodinsky wrote:
2009/7/31 Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org:
Eugene Gorodinsky wrote:
(in my oppinion
this area can be vastly improved, and I'm interested in contributing).
What are the problems of actual format?
For one the dependencies are specified as actual packages, rather
Russ Allbery wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes:
Why?
Always installed is different to essential, see e.g. libc.
libc is essential from a Policy perspective. It's just not marked that
way in the packaging system in case the SONAME changes, but it's essential
in the same way
Russ Allbery wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
libc is essential from a Policy perspective. It's just not marked that
way in the packaging system in case the SONAME changes, but it's
essential in the same way that awk is. Note that dependencies on awk
Raphael Geissert wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
My only doubt, also stated in previous thread is the dash essential.
It is the goal of many people to remove bash (and dash) and some other
packages from essential. But at this time, it is needed.
In general it is very difficult to remove
Russ Allbery wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes:
But probably for the shell cases it is easier to remove 'essential'
flag (especially for a minimal nearly POSIX-like shell like dash),
because the interface of #!/bin/sh is defined in policy (10.3).
Except that every package
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi [2009.07.21.1527 +0200]:
piuparts is _intended_ to be run by every uploader, actually. Or
at least that was my intention back when I wrote it.
Okay, that wasn't my impression, sorry for spreading FUD.
Largely due to the need of
Frans Pop wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
The embedded crowd would want to find a way to get rid of bash, though,
and trying to make bash a non-essential package seems like a worthwile
effort because of that. It can even be reasonably automated, since you
can rgrep /bin/bash to
Raphael Geissert wrote:
Hello everybody,
This is a follow up to my previous thread, with a slightly different proposal.
What actually needs to be done is:
* Make dash essential,
My only doubt, also stated in previous thread is the dash essential.
Technically I would prefer that:
- initscript
Russ Allbery wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes:
PS: I think that dash is a step toward a truly posix shell, but it is
not yet a posix shell: we still need fewer extentions. So in five/ten
year we will change it again.
I doubt that we're going to move in that direction
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:21:45PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
I just noticed I forgot to say something:
What won't change:
* Bash will still be used as the default interactive shells for users
* the sh symlink won't be modified on existing installations
I
Raphael Geissert wrote:
dash already has one, the idea is to make it essential and default to yes,
so that as soon as it is installed the symlink is changed. If you wish to
have dash installed but not as /bin/sh you can always dpkg-reconfigure
dash.
Why essential? It doesn't provide anything
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:49:55PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
This would also eliminate people that have fake ID from places
that most people wouldn't recognise at all -- we're almost bound
to have a local that will recognise it as fake, and so not sign.
By adding the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
(...)
Now really, we want to tie the key to a person -- even if they
resleeve (a. la. Altered Carbon, [0]). Thankfully, releeving is not
(yet) possible, so we don't have to deal with that. All we have to do
is to tie a key to a real live person, and do it in a
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
I think you miss an important item: people with the same name. In my
small town, I know a lot of people with same name (first and surname).
In linux community we have three different Alax Cox.
Right. But you
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
la, 2009-06-20 kello 08:56 +0200, David Paleino kirjoitti:
Is material copyrightable under a nickname, instead of a realname?
Yes, in all jurisdictions I am aware of. It's called a pseudonym and
tends to be explicitly recognized by copyright laws.
but I don't think is
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 19 juin 2009 à 13:01 +0200, Giacomo Catenazzi a écrit :
What is the point of introducing this spec if it is not made mandatory
at some point in the future?
so, IMHO we need a complete guidelines and start to use
it widely. It should not be complete or 100
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
In this case I think we should use DEP-3 without discussion every details:
we need a larger user base, then we will discuss details for standardization,
but not now.
I prefer we take the time to think it thoroughly so
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 10 juin 2009 à 23:56 +0100, Noah Slater a écrit :
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:44:33PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
The more I read about this [DEP5], the more I get the feeling that it is
only pushed by people who never maintained large source packages (that
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
to, 2009-06-11 kello 15:01 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi kirjoitti:
- and a reason
That's the killer point we should concentrate on. I know commercial
derivatives of Debian can benefit from machine-readable debian/copyright
files: their customers may need to get a list
Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2009-06-08, Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@cateee.net wrote:
The slash is locale dependent. Thus a file created in an other locales
could contain the character that in current locale is interpreted as
slash.
BTW with pathname resolution rules, the file could not be acceded
Peter Samuelson wrote:
First, as I've said elsewhere, this thread is just about the most
impressive bikeshedding session I've ever seen.
In my defence (I started this sub-bikeshedding): it was a sentence
in a postscriptum.
Technically: on handling external data: for every rules there will
be
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09 2009, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
Some highlights:
* two carriage return chars (\r)
* one escape char
* 5431 spaces
* 1 double quotes ()
* 98 single quotes (')
* 64 asterisks (*)
* 524 commas
* 3 backslashes
* 51601 percent chars (%)
No newlines,
Henrique Almeida wrote:
(this message will be posted to debian-glib and debian-devel)
Hello,
I know debian has just switched it's libc implementation, but I've
created a project that will hopefully lead core Unix functionality
into a new direction. The goal is unifying all Unix
Charles Plessy wrote:
I also think that to get the best human-readability, it is important to avoid
escape and quoting characters.
I don't agree, we use wild cards (or glob as written in PEP5), which are
not so human readable (if developer use non standard globs).
Additionally rules are
Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2009-06-08, Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org wrote:
PS: on POSIX you can expect all characters but NULL in filename
('/' is a very special beast: you cannot create a file containing the
'/' in current locale, but if it was created in other locales
Marco d'Itri wrote:
This is relevant for udev becase kernel events can trigger the
execution of programs at the very beginning of the boot when only the
root is mounted.
While currently packages can and do easily implement workarounds for
this situation (like waiting in a loop for the files in
Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 03:17:33PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
So I would like to have a short log (e.g. what I put in stdout/stderr,
with ./configure --quiet), so that people will have no excuses for
not be carefukll, but also to have access to configure.log
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:38:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
it is the principle of the thing. /root is the home directory
for the root user. Home directories are mutable, programs may store
configuration files there, as may the user, by themselves. The
Roger Leigh wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 03:53:23PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:38:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
it is the principle of the thing. /root is the home directory
for the root user. Home directories
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 03:53:23PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
No, /root cannot be a separate filesystem.
/root is part of very basic system, and it is required for super user
when he/she is restoring the systems or doing some kind of administration
(e.g. moving
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 04:21:53PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
I totally agree that / (thus /root) could be read-only.
I pointed out to you that /root is required to be in the same filesystem as /
(FHS) and I gave
you the rationale.
What's the FHS says
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:41:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The only builds Debian supports are not just the buildd ones. As
members of the free software community, we should also cater to end
users building, tweaking, and rebuilding our software.
The
Russ Allbery wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The only builds Debian supports are not just the buildd ones. As
members of the free software community, we should also cater to end
users building, tweaking, and rebuilding our software
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org writes:
Hi,
On Sonntag, 10. Mai 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
With the include approach, we lack this feature and bad/broken local
overrides can't be detected if we only have the build log at hand.
which reminds me that we dont
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, May 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:37:46PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote:
I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement
config files using your
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Josselin Mouette said:
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
Those who want a read-only ‘/usr’ don't seriously try to leave it
read-only while installing or upgrading packages, do they?
But with RPM this works!
If that is
Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Jon Dowland
jon+debian-de...@alcopop.org wrote:
only to say that this is really just applying a patch, no need to panic.
How about defaulting to assume if the maintainer hasn't posted,
there's no reason to panic. Assume the maintainer
Harald Braumann wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 08:01:11 +0200
Giacomo Catenazzi c...@debian.org wrote:
No, most of users don't need a full MTA, but only a local MTA
(usually only sendmail command, but ev. only a socket listening to
localhost:25).
SO I would propose a more simple mailer (esmtpd
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 09:38:39AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Simple.
sarcasm
Sure, that's precisely what I'd call being properly supported in
Debian.
/sarcasm
In particular, from the replies to my question the picture I get is
that everybody is using ad hoc
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
A few side notes:
* everybody overlooked the subtle theoretical problem that our
maintainer scripts can potentially do *everything* on the file
system and *everywhere*, and that they are written in a Turing
complete language (shell script). This means that you
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:06:34PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
But system administration is per definition ad hoc solution.
This is our power. Why we give sources? Also to allow us
to tweak debian.
This is a utterly poor argument.
I can easily twist it against
martin f krafft wrote:
[moving debian-rele...@l.d.o to Bcc, continuing discussion in bug log]
also sprach Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org [2009.05.04.1856
+0200]:
FWIW as previously discussed on debian-devel starting with the
lastest upload (4.69-10) exim4-daemon-light provides
Marco d'Itri wrote:
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
/usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
(not Ubuntu, not Fedora, not SuSE).
I know that Debian
Raphael Geissert wrote:
Once I file the bug reports I will be giving about two weeks before I remove
the hack from DEHS and later from the DDPO. The lintian check has been
around for many months now and it has given maintainers enough time to
prepare an upload to fix some bugs on their packages
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
