On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 07:31:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote:
> Ok, you#re right. But the classic http daemons (cern for example) used/use
> chroot() for security reasons. You#re right, the current apache package
> supports symlinks, but will all users use apache? Will all users use
> FollowSy
Am 30.09.99 schrieb joey # kitenet.net ...
Moin Joey!
JH> > (a) symlinks don#t work with the http protocol
JH> You know, I've read the http protocol, and I don't recal any mention of
JH> such unix-centric concepts of symlinks, especially not any prohibition of
JH> them. If you're going to keep
Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, then Debian 2.2 will be broken.
No. There are not many packages which quickly switched to
/usr/share/doc without the symlinks. The maintainers of these
packages quickly changed, so they are alive and the should be able to
add the symlink to their next
Marco Budde wrote:
> (a) symlinks don#t work with the http protocol
You know, I've read the http protocol, and I don't recal any mention of such
unix-centric concepts of symlinks, especially not any prohibition of them.
If you're going to keep insisting the http protocol doesn't support
symlinks
Am 28.09.99 schrieb martin # internet-treff.uni-koeln.de ...
Moin Martin!
MB> Marco> localhost/doc/ should point to /usr/share/doc. Please submit a
MB> Marco> bug report for your http daemon.
MB> The decision was made by the ctte, it is not yet implemented in the
MB> policy document, but it will
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 08:25:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote:
> ROTFL, why should I change dhelp to support a broken file format?
...
> dhelp supports all formats.
...
These statements contradict each other.
--
Raul
Marco Budde wrote:
> Am 28.09.99 schrieb joey # kitenet.net ...
>
> Moin Joey!
>
> JH> > No. A http daemon will never follow this symlinks. They#re 100% useless
> JH> > when using the http protocol.
> JH> Balderdash. http://www.apache.org/docs-1.2/mod/core.html#options
>
> Somebody told me Debia
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Your example implies that doc-base's install-docs is at fault for
> creating files under either /usr/doc/HTML or /usr/share/doc/HTML
> instead of files in a single place, with a /usr/doc/HTML ->
> /usr/share/doc/HTML symlink. Am I correct? Or did I m
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > > This may work sometimes but not always -> hack.
> > ctte decided, that this has always to work. If it doesn't, this
> > is a bug in the package.
> I assume that I can't start filing bugs against the ~116 packages
> on my system (eg, libc6) tha
Your example implies that doc-base's install-docs is at fault for
creating files under either /usr/doc/HTML or /usr/share/doc/HTML
instead of files in a single place, with a /usr/doc/HTML ->
/usr/share/doc/HTML symlink. Am I correct? Or did I miss
something?
In that case, shouldn't the bug go
Sorry to interrupt the flamew^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion here, but I have a
quick question.
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 12:01:22PM +, Roland Rosenfeld was heard to say:
> > One again: they are *not* accessible via these symlinks!
>
> They are.
Well, maybe. (see below)
> > This may work someti
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 08:25:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote:
>
> Please tell me what for do we need doc-base?
To piss off people like you of course.
Shaking my head in despair.
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server
Marcus Brinkmann
* "Marco" == Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Marco> the libc maintainer closed such a bug report without adding
Marco> support for these programs. This is not a good sign for
Marco> Debian#s quality.
glibc-doc_2.1.2-4 uses doc-base.
Ciao,
Martin
Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ROTFL, why should I change dhelp to support a broken file format?
Can you give a short summary where the doc-base format is broken?
Sorry, I didn't read debian-doc so I didn't know what the problem is.
> Please tell me what for do we need doc-base? We nee
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 08:25:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote:
> ROTFL, why should I change dhelp to support a broken file format?
How is the doc-base file format broken?
> Please tell me what for do we need doc-base?
It's a useful abstraction over specific documentation systems.
> In fact the f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) writes:
> Am 28.09.99 schrieb roland # spinnaker.de ...
> RR> > installation process? There#re two better solutions: 1) All programs use
> RR> > the same file format.
> RR> Okay, simply change dhelp to use the doc-base directly and were are done.
>
> ROTFL, why sh
Am 28.09.99 schrieb roland # spinnaker.de ...
Moin Roland!
RR> > installation process? There#re two better solutions: 1) All programs use
RR> > the same file format.
RR> Okay, simply change dhelp to use the doc-base directly and were are done.
ROTFL, why should I change dhelp to support a broken
Am 28.09.99 schrieb joey # kitenet.net ...
Moin Joey!
JH> > No. A http daemon will never follow this symlinks. They#re 100% useless
JH> > when using the http protocol.
JH> Balderdash. http://www.apache.org/docs-1.2/mod/core.html#options
Somebody told me Debian includes more than one http daemon
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 04:23:22PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Then we'll have to agree where we register docs. I have the
> following directories on a fresh potato system (with few packages):
>
> /usr/share/doc/HTML/
> /usr/doc/HTML/
>
> And they are _not_ symlinks. They get created by d
* "Marco" == Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Marco,
please show a little common sense. You are beating a dead horse.
Marco> localhost/doc/ should point to /usr/share/doc. Please submit a
Marco> bug report for your http daemon.
The decision was made by the ctte, it is not yet implemented
Ruud de Rooij wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) writes:
>
> > PSG> I could see http://localhost/doc/HTML/, but all new docs visible
> > PSG> as file:/usr/share/doc/HTML/index.html could not be seen under
> > PSG> the http://localhost interface to dhelp. Is `fhs' supposed to be
> > PSG> a
Marco Budde wrote:
> PSG> I have a recent potato install and dhelp 0.3.14 and _don't_ have
> PSG> http://localhost/fhs/ support.
>
> I don#t have it, too :). Is this directory a Debian standard, Roland?
It isn't.
> PSG> I could see http://localhost/doc/HTML/, but all new docs visible
> PSG> a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) writes:
> PSG> I could see http://localhost/doc/HTML/, but all new docs visible
> PSG> as file:/usr/share/doc/HTML/index.html could not be seen under
> PSG> the http://localhost interface to dhelp. Is `fhs' supposed to be
> PSG> a new Alias?
>
> localhost/doc/ sho
Am 27.09.99 schrieb GalbraithP # dfo-mpo.gc.ca ...
Moin Peter!
PSG> I have a recent potato install and dhelp 0.3.14 and _don't_ have
PSG> http://localhost/fhs/ support.
I don#t have it, too :). Is this directory a Debian standard, Roland?
PSG> I could see http://localhost/doc/HTML/, but all new
Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RR> It is always a good idea to use a generic format which can
> RR> automatically converted to all useful formats instead of using
> RR> one special format.
> No, sorry, but this is wrong. Why should we convert files during the
> installation process? T
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 06:56:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote:
> RR> I just installed it, but as far as I can see this doesn't integrate
> RR> FHS and FSSTND
>
> Right, because this is not possible.
Counter-example:
(
dump() {
lynx -dump -source -width=1000 $1 |
* "Marco" == Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Am 25.09.99 schrieb roland # spinnaker.de ...
RR> It is always a good idea to use a generic format which can
RR> automatically converted to all useful formats instead of using one
RR> special format.
Marco> No, sorry, but this is wrong. W
Marco Budde wrote:
> No. A http daemon will never follow this symlinks. They#re 100% useless
> when using the http protocol.
Balderdash. http://www.apache.org/docs-1.2/mod/core.html#options
FollowSymLinks
The server will follow symbolic links in this directory. Note: even
though th
Am 25.09.99 schrieb roland # spinnaker.de ...
Moin Roland!
RR> > Why? What is the advantage of using doc-base?
RR> It is always a good idea to use a generic format which can
RR> automatically converted to all useful formats instead of using one
RR> special format.
No, sorry, but this is wrong. W
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > There were some rumors, that Apache would be able to handle both
> > directories as http://localhost/doc/ (use /usr/share/doc/ and
> > if the file/directory isn't available fall back to
> > /usr/doc/), but I don't know enough about Apache to realiz
Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > > P.S.: The latest dhelp 0.3.14 supports FHS *and* FSSTND :).
>
> > > I just installed it, but as far as I can see this doesn't
> > > integrate FHS and FSSTND in any way but creates two completely
> > > incompatible
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > P.S.: The latest dhelp 0.3.14 supports FHS *and* FSSTND :).
> > I just installed it, but as far as I can see this doesn't
> > integrate FHS and FSSTND in any way but creates two completely
> > incompatible trees one next to the other. Now I can
Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > P.S.: The latest dhelp 0.3.14 supports FHS *and* FSSTND :).
>
> I just installed it, but as far as I can see this doesn't integrate
> FHS and FSSTND in any way but creates two completely incompatible
> trees one next to the
Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why? What is the advantage of using doc-base?
You may want to read the documentation of doc-base...
It is always a good idea to use a generic format which can
automatically converted to all useful formats instead of using one
special format. doc-base give
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) writes:
> Am 24.09.99 schrieb joey # kitenet.net ...
>
> Moin Joey!
>
> JH> > dh_installdocs uses doc-base, which in turn registers documents for
> JH> > dwww and dhelp. Thous it is a superset and should be used, no?
>
> I would recommend using dwww and dhelp dir
Am 24.09.99 schrieb joey # kitenet.net ...
Moin Joey!
JH> > dh_installdocs uses doc-base, which in turn registers documents for
JH> > dwww and dhelp. Thous it is a superset and should be used, no?
I would recommend using dwww and dhelp directly. dhelp#s parser is written
in C and uses a databa
From: "Martin Bialasinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: strange behavior of dh_dhelp
Date: 24 Sep 1999 09:31:49 +0200
> * "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Joey> You are under the mistaken impression that dh_dhelp is a
> Joey&
Martin Bialasinski wrote:
>
> * "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Joey> You are under the mistaken impression that dh_dhelp is a
> Joey> debhelper program. It's not. Don't use it.
>
> dh_installdocs uses doc-base, which in turn registers documents for
> dwww and dhelp. Thous it
* "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joey> You are under the mistaken impression that dh_dhelp is a
Joey> debhelper program. It's not. Don't use it.
dh_installdocs uses doc-base, which in turn registers documents for
dwww and dhelp. Thous it is a superset and should be used, no?
Ci
From: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: strange behavior of dh_dhelp
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 19:46:12 -0700
> Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > Some debhelper scripts automatically generate appropriate
> > postinst/prerm etc. with "#DEBHELPER#" setting when one r
Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> Some debhelper scripts automatically generate appropriate
> postinst/prerm etc. with "#DEBHELPER#" setting when one run
> dh_installdeb.
You are under the mistaken impression that dh_dhelp is a debhelper program.
It's not. Don't use it.
> Is there any reason of this beha
Hello all,
Some debhelper scripts automatically generate appropriate
postinst/prerm etc. with "#DEBHELPER#" setting when one run
dh_installdeb.
But dh_dhelp seems to be outside of this mechanism and
one should put dh_dhelp after dh_installdeb otherwise
postinst/prerm created by dh_dhelp seems t
42 matches
Mail list logo
