On 9/5/07, Sergej Pupykin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >DP> Wednesday 05 September 2007, Dan McGee wrote:
> >DP> | This is something for namcap to check- as far as I can think,
> >DP> | makepkg does not enforce any packaging standards or such things
> >DP> | currently so I don't want to clutter
>DP> Wednesday 05 September 2007, Dan McGee wrote:
>DP> | This is something for namcap to check- as far as I can think,
>DP> | makepkg does not enforce any packaging standards or such things
>DP> | currently so I don't want to clutter it.
>DP> i second this! makepkg is not the way to limit this
Wednesday 05 September 2007, Dan McGee wrote:
| This is something for namcap to check- as far as I can think,
| makepkg does not enforce any packaging standards or such things
| currently so I don't want to clutter it.
i second this! makepkg is not the way to limit this.
- D
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> On 9/5/07, Sergej Pupykin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > >> Generally agree, but I think no packages should install files to
> > /home,
> > >> > >> /tmp, /var/tmp, /dev, /media, /mnt, /root.
> > >> +1
> > >AG> +1 from me
> >
>
On 9/5/07, Sergej Pupykin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >> Generally agree, but I think no packages should install files to
> /home,
> >> > >> /tmp, /var/tmp, /dev, /media, /mnt, /root.
> >> +1
> >AG> +1 from me
>
> I suggest to modify makepkg. If pkg dir contains these directories makepk
>> > >> Generally agree, but I think no packages should install files to
>> > /home,
>> > >> /tmp, /var/tmp, /dev, /media, /mnt, /root.
>> +1
>AG> +1 from me
I suggest to modify makepkg. If pkg dir contains these directories makepkg
will fail.
If other developers agree with it, I can make
gentoo-wiki.com is not bad as well
On 9/5/07, Jeffrey 'jf' Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/5/07, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Our own wiki is pretty good too.
> > :)
> >
>
> yup, generally speaking. So what's the point of having yet another
> arch collection of wiki docs?
>
> -
On 9/5/07, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Our own wiki is pretty good too.
> :)
>
yup, generally speaking. So what's the point of having yet another
arch collection of wiki docs?
-jf
--
In the meantime, here is your PSA:
"It's so hard to write a graphics driver that open-sourcing it would
2007/9/5, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 04:32:11PM +0200, Georg Grabler wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 September 2007 16:22:10 Roman Kyrylych wrote:
> > >
> > > So far tldp.org is the largest all-Linux documentation project (that
> > > I'm aware of)
> > > but it's not a wiki and
On 9/5/07, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/5/07, Sergej Pupykin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >AG> On 9/5/07, Sergej Pupykin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Generally agree, but I think no packages should install files to /home,
> > >> /tmp, /var/tmp, /dev, /media, /mnt, /root.
> >
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 04:32:11PM +0200, Georg Grabler wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 September 2007 16:22:10 Roman Kyrylych wrote:
> >
> > So far tldp.org is the largest all-Linux documentation project (that
> > I'm aware of)
> > but it's not a wiki and it has a lot of rarely updated docs comparing
> >
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 16:22:10 Roman Kyrylych wrote:
> Just saw it and thought about sharing this info:
>
> http://www.thelinuxvault.net/
> "The Linux Vault is a new wiki project founded with the mission of
> creating a centralized GNU/Linux information website."
>
> And there's already Ar
Just saw it and thought about sharing this info:
http://www.thelinuxvault.net/
"The Linux Vault is a new wiki project founded with the mission of
creating a centralized GNU/Linux information website."
And there's already Arch page on it. :P
What do you think about this kind of projects?
So far
On 9/5/07, Sergej Pupykin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >AG> On 9/5/07, Sergej Pupykin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Generally agree, but I think no packages should install files to /home,
> >> /tmp, /var/tmp, /dev, /media, /mnt, /root.
> >>
> >> And it should be written in Arch Packaging Stan
>AG> On 9/5/07, Sergej Pupykin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Generally agree, but I think no packages should install files to /home,
>> /tmp, /var/tmp, /dev, /media, /mnt, /root.
>>
>> And it should be written in Arch Packaging Standard.
>AG> Sweet! When did you become a developer?
May be I s
On 9/5/07, Sergej Pupykin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Generally agree, but I think no packages should install files to /home,
> /tmp, /var/tmp, /dev, /media, /mnt, /root.
>
> And it should be written in Arch Packaging Standard.
Sweet! When did you become a developer?
>DM> Seriously guys- this is getting out of hand. Obviously not everyone is
>DM> going to come to consensus, so stop trying to reach it. Basically it
>DM> is up to the maintainer of the web packages and web servers to decide
>DM> what to do, and that is that.
Generally agree, but I think no packa
On 9/5/07, Roman Kyrylych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/9/5, Sergej Pupykin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >SP> May be more proper way to install web-packages to
> > >/usr/share/
> > >SP> and default web server root into /srv/www/?
> >
> > I think there is no technical difference where to place
2007/9/5, Sergej Pupykin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >SP> May be more proper way to install web-packages to /usr/share/
> >SP> and default web server root into /srv/www/?
>
> I think there is no technical difference where to place web packages
> (except /home of course, wich can be network mounted)
>
RedShift wrote:
> I agree with this one.
>
> eliott wrote:
>
>> Note: Not in any way directed at you Roman. You are just the last
>> person on this thread so far..
>>
>> ### start rant
>>
>> I object.
>> This seems insane to me.
>>
>> Just use one web directory. If people install multiple web
Sergej Pupykin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> May be voting? :)
>
> Web package:
> 1 - /srv/www/
> Web server default root:
> 1 - /srv/www/
I'm for "srv". Cause the data is "served".
--
Gruß, Johannes
Täglich http://blog.hehejo.de und du fühlst dich gut.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
>SP> May be more proper way to install web-packages to /usr/share/
>SP> and default web server root into /srv/www/?
I think there is no technical difference where to place web packages
(except /home of course, wich can be network mounted)
May be voting? :)
Web package:
1 - /srv/www/
2 - /var/ww
About web-packages exitstence:
- Many (most) users have only one web server with no virtual hosts. So it
is convinient to have ready to use web-package.
- It is possible to make web-packages work with virtual hosts.
- If someone wants to maintain web-package, why not?
Of course we should use
I agree with this one.
eliott wrote:
> Note: Not in any way directed at you Roman. You are just the last
> person on this thread so far..
>
> ### start rant
>
> I object.
> This seems insane to me.
>
> Just use one web directory. If people install multiple web
> servers..ok..bear with me..maybe
24 matches
Mail list logo
