On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 10:03:08PM +1000, Sven Dowideit wrote:
On 02/07/12 02:03, Marc Haber wrote:
I am really really astonished about with which ease we hurl RC
bugs at packages without having thought-out alternatives.
Would it not be better to reject the Debian QA 'suggestion' until
such
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 07:53:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
It would indeed be best if everything possible was documented, but very
few people volunteer to do the work to drive changes to the documentation
through to completion.
This is partly because of the kind-of heavy-handed policy
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 07:53:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
It would indeed be best if everything possible was documented, but very
few people volunteer to do the work to drive changes to the documentation
through to completion.
This is partly
Marc Haber mh+debian-ment...@zugschlus.de writes:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 07:53:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
It would indeed be best if everything possible was documented, but very
few people volunteer to do the work to drive changes to the
documentation through to completion.
This is
Hi,
Debian QA decided recently that it is bad to have a system/package
account created with its home directory in /home/package, as it is
adduser --system's default btw. I am therefore faced with having to
change /home to some non-/home place. Unfortunately, policy does not
give any hint about
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:44:48PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Hi,
Debian QA decided recently that it is bad to have a system/package
account created with its home directory in /home/package, as it is
adduser --system's default btw. I am therefore faced with having to
change /home to some
Marc Haber mh+debian-ment...@zugschlus.de writes:
Hi,
Debian QA decided recently that it is bad to have a system/package
account created with its home directory in /home/package, as it is
adduser --system's default btw. I am therefore faced with having to
change /home to some non-/home
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 01:04:17PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:44:48PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Debian QA decided recently that it is bad to have a system/package
account created with its home directory in /home/package, as it is
adduser --system's default btw. I am
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 02:53:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
If you need configuration files (which the user is supposed to edit as
supposed to calling some config tool) in the users home directory and
also automatically changing files then I'm afraid you will need to use
both /etc
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 02:56:13PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 01:04:17PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:44:48PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Debian QA decided recently that it is bad to have a system/package
account created with its home directory
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 02:29:05PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 02:56:13PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 01:04:17PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:44:48PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Debian QA decided recently that it is bad to
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012, Marc Haber wrote:
Yes, but it's user configuration not system configuration.
A system user's .ssh is user configuration?
If it is intended to be manipulated by the local admin, yes, and it would
belong in /etc somewhere.
If you do want to have that as configuration in
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:36:41PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012, Marc Haber wrote:
Yes, but it's user configuration not system configuration.
A system user's .ssh is user configuration?
If it is intended to be manipulated by the local admin, yes, and it
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:36:41PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012, Marc Haber wrote:
Yes, but it's user configuration not system configuration.
A system user's .ssh is user configuration?
If it is intended to
On 02/07/12 02:03, Marc Haber wrote:
I am really really astonished about with which ease we hurl RC bugs at
packages without having thought-out alternatives.
Would it not be better to reject the Debian QA 'suggestion' until such
time as its documented thoroughly in the Packaging manual?
I'm a
Sven Dowideit svendowid...@home.org.au writes:
On 02/07/12 02:03, Marc Haber wrote:
I am really really astonished about with which ease we hurl RC bugs at
packages without having thought-out alternatives.
Would it not be better to reject the Debian QA 'suggestion' until such
time as its
On 02/07/12 12:53, Russ Allbery wrote:
Sven Dowideitsvendowid...@home.org.au writes:
On 02/07/12 02:03, Marc Haber wrote:
I am really really astonished about with which ease we hurl RC bugs at
packages without having thought-out alternatives.
Would it not be better to reject the Debian QA
Sorry, I wanted to be constructive:
IMO, if a maintainer of a package isn't sure how to address a policy
request, I believe the best response is to reject/park the issue,
pending a separate discussion and adding of the needed details to policy
(or appendices etc).
The reason I feel this
18 matches
Mail list logo
