Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philip> For example, suppose we decided to move `organisation' to be
Philip> under /usr/share at some point in the future. I can see how
Philip> we would arrange this with one package owning the file, but if
Philip> all the packages ``own
> Hi,
>
> I was thinking about /etc/news/organization. Seems silly to
> have a package just have that file. All kinds of packages depend on
> it -- mailagent, vm, gnus, news-readers, news servers
>
> Seems easier to look for the file, and ask the user for an
> organization and
Hi,
I was thinking about /etc/news/organization. Seems silly to
have a package just have that file. All kinds of packages depend on
it -- mailagent, vm, gnus, news-readers, news servers
Seems easier to look for the file, and ask the user for an
organization and create the
(Just in case someone is intrested: I was extremely busy at work for the
last 6 weeks so I didn't had much time to work on Debian. However, I have
3 weeks holidays now and I'm planning to catch up with the open policy
discussions soon.)
The list of open topics is so long that I decided to post i
On Fri, Apr 10, 1998 at 12:28:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I have one point to add to this. Handling files not mentioned
> in the *.list file was one way of several packages to handle/edit a
> common file, for example, if a bunch of packages need /etc/foo to
> exist, and foo can c
> Hi,
>
> I have one point to add to this. Handling files not mentioned
> in the *.list file was one way of several packages to handle/edit a
> common file, for example, if a bunch of packages need /etc/foo to
> exist, and foo can contain the word bar or bah, then any package, in
> the p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> In the specific dispute you are involved in, the letter of
> this proposed policy has already been followed.
In short, I would summarize my old bug as follows:
1) A .m file in the future (or a computer in the past) causes octave
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Manoj is right. Rewording:
Are there any objections to the policy proposed by Ian?
I would like to see approved (by the usual procedures) a policy with
respect to bug reports as soon as possible, because we have no policy at
all so far (only "current practice")
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> Could we please make this policy right now and fine-tune it
Santiago> later?
I strongly object to any such sentiment on general
principles. Something as important as policy should never be entered
into rashly, and
Hi,
I have one point to add to this. Handling files not mentioned
in the *.list file was one way of several packages to handle/edit a
common file, for example, if a bunch of packages need /etc/foo to
exist, and foo can contain the word bar or bah, then any package, in
the postinst, fin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I also propose the following guidelines for determining whether a bug
> report should be kept open, etc. These may be stated elsewhere
> already, but should be consolidated:
>
> [snipped]
I mostly agree.
Could we pleas
Hello world,
On Tue, Apr 07, 1998 at 12:47:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Instead, we should introduce a file called extra files to list
> files that the package may generate in maintainer scripts or in
> normal operations which are not listed in pkg.list. We may exclude
> files un
12 matches
Mail list logo
