On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:19:54PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:33:55AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> > > > > This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway...
> > > >
> > > > no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone?
> > >
> > > There ain't no such thing as free popcor
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:19:54PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:33:55AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> > > > > This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway...
> > > >
> > > > no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone?
> > >
> > > There ain't no such thing as free popco
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:50:58PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > It seems to me that it would be overzealous to worry about that now...
> > > creating a special /usr/share/ppp directory (or whatever) just for this
> > > purpose,
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:08:07PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > It seems to me that it would be overzealous to worry about that now...
> > creating a special /usr/share/ppp directory (or whatever) just for this
> > purpose, and link
On 26-Feb-2001 Sean Preston wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am a little new at this and confused by the documentation on the bug
> track page. How do I go about adopting a package that is up for adoption?
>
> I believe I have to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] but what do I use
> in the subject?
>
>
Hi
I am a little new at this and confused by the documentation on the bug
track page. How do I go about adopting a package that is up for adoption?
I believe I have to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] but what do I use
in the subject?
Just a little confused by these options.
OIf you a
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:18:39PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started
> > > talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the
> > > sufficiently argumen
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:50:58PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > It seems to me that it would be overzealous to worry about that now...
> > > creating a special /usr/share/ppp directory (or whatever) just for this
> > > purpose,
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:08:07PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > It seems to me that it would be overzealous to worry about that now...
> > creating a special /usr/share/ppp directory (or whatever) just for this
> > purpose, and lin
>
> samth# lintian --version
> Lintian v1.20.6
> samth# lintian -i uf-view_1.2-2_i386.changes
> W: uf-view source: newer-standards-version 3.5.2.0
>
> I presume this is a lintian bug. Right?
>
I need to add new policy to the list of known policy. However, i only do this
when lintian fully und
On 26-Feb-2001 Sean Preston wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am a little new at this and confused by the documentation on the bug
> track page. How do I go about adopting a package that is up for adoption?
>
> I believe I have to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] but what do I use
> in the subject?
>
>
Hi
I am a little new at this and confused by the documentation on the bug
track page. How do I go about adopting a package that is up for adoption?
I believe I have to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] but what do I use
in the subject?
Just a little confused by these options.
OIf you are
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:18:39PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started
> > > talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the
> > > sufficiently argume
>
> samth# lintian --version
> Lintian v1.20.6
> samth# lintian -i uf-view_1.2-2_i386.changes
> W: uf-view source: newer-standards-version 3.5.2.0
>
> I presume this is a lintian bug. Right?
>
I need to add new policy to the list of known policy. However, i only do this
when lintian fully un
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:33:55AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> > > > This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway...
> > >
> > > no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone?
> >
> > There ain't no such thing as free popcorn ;(
>
> This popping corn is available under the terms of the Free Food
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:21:41PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:15:59AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> > > This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway...
> >
> > no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone?
>
> There ain't no such thing as free popcorn ;(
This popping c
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:15:59AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> > This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway...
>
> no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone?
There ain't no such thing as free popcorn ;(
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started
> > talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the
> > sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilb
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:10:25PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway...
no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone?
--
Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> >
> > I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started
> > talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the
> > sufficiently argumentative (me): Juli
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started
> talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the
> sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilbey was talking about config
> files in doc/. It didn
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Plausible argument, but I seem to recall discussions of scenarios where
> > the sysadmin wants /usr/share/doc so un-badly that it will never exist and
> > will never be installed, e.g. by using some kind of dpkg feature to avoid
> > i
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:33:25AM +1300, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files".
> >
> > Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know.
>
>
> Where in the g
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.2.0
Severity: wishlist
[Following from a thread on -mentors]
The question: can you have a default configuration file in
/usr/share/doc which is copied by the postinst to /etc if it does not
yet exist?
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files".
>
> Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know.
>
> > Please read that section again.
>
> Did you? 13.3 isn't the config file policy, it's th
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
>
> I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started
> talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the
> sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilbey was talking about config
> files in doc/. It d
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:32:21PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > It does not violate 13.3 because at the time the package is newly
> > > installed,
> > > /usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/* exists.
> >
> > ...so the system administrator won't get a chance to delete them and won't
> > cause the progra
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:37:40PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > >
> > > Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in
> > > /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!?
> > >
> >
> > That wasn't a reply to you...
>
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:37:40PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> >
> > Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in
> > /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!?
> >
>
> That wasn't a reply to you...
I dont care. I brought up the point, and you said it was aga
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files".
> >
> > Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know.
> >
> > > Please read that section again
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files".
>
> Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know.
>
> > Please read that section again.
>
> Did you? 13.3 isn't the config file policy, it's th
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:23:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> >
> > It does not violate 13.3 because at the time the package is newly installed,
> > /usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/* exists.
>
> ...so the system administrator won't get a chance to delete t
> Maybe you misunderstood what I was referring to... of course changing or
> messing with them isn't, but generating/installing them from e.g.
> /usr/share/doc/foo/examples is a violation, according to 13.3.
Files in /usr/share/doc' should not be referenced by any program, and
the system
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install
> > > them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be
> > > upgraded? if so, mv them to
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:23:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > > > > In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
> > > > > > debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they
> > > > > > will only
> > > > > > overwrite the existing versions if they have
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > > > In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
> > > > > debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they
> > > > > will only
> > > > > overwrite the existing versions if they have not been
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > > In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
> > > > debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they
> > > > will only
> > > > overwrite the exi
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:33:55AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> > > > This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway...
> > >
> > > no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone?
> >
> > There ain't no such thing as free popcorn ;(
>
> This popping corn is available under the terms of the Free Foo
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install
> > them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be
> > upgraded? if so, mv them to the proper location in /var.
> >
> > same thing is
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:21:41PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:15:59AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> > > This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway...
> >
> > no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone?
>
> There ain't no such thing as free popcorn ;(
This popping
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:15:59AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> > This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway...
>
> no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone?
There ain't no such thing as free popcorn ;(
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
--
To UN
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started
> > talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the
> > sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gil
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:10:25PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway...
no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone?
--
Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> >
> > I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started
> > talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the
> > sufficiently argumentative (me): Jul
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started
> talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the
> sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilbey was talking about config
> files in doc/. It did
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Plausible argument, but I seem to recall discussions of scenarios where
> > the sysadmin wants /usr/share/doc so un-badly that it will never exist and
> > will never be installed, e.g. by using some kind of dpkg feature to avoid
> >
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:33:25AM +1300, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files".
> >
> > Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know.
>
>
> Where in the
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.2.0
Severity: wishlist
[Following from a thread on -mentors]
The question: can you have a default configuration file in
/usr/share/doc which is copied by the postinst to /etc if it does not
yet exist?
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files".
>
> Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know.
>
> > Please read that section again.
>
> Did you? 13.3 isn't the config file policy, it's t
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
> > > debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will
> > > only
> > > overwrite the existing versions if they have not been modified or the
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
>
> I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started
> talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the
> sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilbey was talking about config
> files in doc/. It
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:32:21PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > It does not violate 13.3 because at the time the package is newly installed,
> > > /usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/* exists.
> >
> > ...so the system administrator won't get a chance to delete them and won't
> > cause the program (the
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:37:40PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > >
> > > Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in
> > > /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!?
> > >
> >
> > That wasn't a reply to you...
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 03:03:08PM +0100, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> That's what I read in one of your previous message and it made sense to me.
> Then Henrique argued that it was a bad idea.
>
> [...]
> > > Perhaps better: copy it in the postinst, remove the old version in the
> > > postinst.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:37:40PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> >
> > Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in
> > /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!?
> >
>
> That wasn't a reply to you...
I dont care. I brought up the point, and you said it was ag
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files".
> >
> > Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know.
> >
> > > Please read that section agai
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files".
>
> Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know.
>
> > Please read that section again.
>
> Did you? 13.3 isn't the config file policy, it's t
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:23:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> >
> > It does not violate 13.3 because at the time the package is newly installed,
> > /usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/* exists.
>
> ...so the system administrator won't get a chance to delete
> Maybe you misunderstood what I was referring to... of course changing or
> messing with them isn't, but generating/installing them from e.g.
> /usr/share/doc/foo/examples is a violation, according to 13.3.
Files in /usr/share/doc' should not be referenced by any program, and
the syste
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install
> > > them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be
> > > upgraded? if so, mv them to
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:23:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > > > > In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
> > > > > > debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will
>only
> > > > > > overwrite the existing versions if they have not been
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > > > In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
> > > > > debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will only
> > > > > overwrite the existing versions if they have not been modified
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > > In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
> > > > debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will only
> > > > overwrite the existing ve
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files.
>
> But that's a policy violation (13.3)
Oh, I'd better fix it then :)
--
Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
---
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:26:55PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
> > debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will
> > only
> > overwrite the existing ve
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install
> > them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be
> > upgraded? if so, mv them to the proper location in /var.
> >
> > same thing is
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
> > > debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will only
> > > overwrite the existing versions if they have not been modified or the user
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 03:03:08PM +0100, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> That's what I read in one of your previous message and it made sense to me.
> Then Henrique argued that it was a bad idea.
>
> [...]
> > > Perhaps better: copy it in the postinst, remove the old version in the
> > > postinst.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files.
>
> But that's a policy violation (13.3)
Oh, I'd better fix it then :)
--
Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:26:55PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
> > debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will only
> > overwrite the existing versio
70 matches
Mail list logo
