On 1 Mar 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> There's a difference between compliance and compatibility. At the
> moment, we are striving for compatibility. Compliance will be a later
> goal.
Ah. I can see now that the first sentence of section 3.1.1 is probably
trying to say `compatibility' using othe
Wierd. Is someone trying to be naughty?- chad
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 11:04:08AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 0subscribe
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
A young student ca
0subscribe
0subscribe
Seth R Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we wish Debian to be compliant with the FSB (is that right? The
> "lowest common denominator linux that companies can write software for")
> don't we need to follow the FHS pretty closely? Perhaps extra
> directories in /usr/local are no big deal.
Th
* Jean-Christophe Dubacq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000301 00:18]:
> local-config tetex would create all /usr/local/ subdirs needed for tetex
> local-config ghostscript would create /usr/local/lib/ghostscript/
> {commmon,5.50}, etc.
This I don't mind at all, though I would hazard that the proper place t
What about a simple script, eg local-config which would take a package
name as argument (or any generic description), read a config file given
by the aforenamed package and create all necessary stuff in /usr/local/?
local-config tetex would create all /usr/local/ subdirs needed for tetex
local-con
* John Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000229 23:27]:
> How about an /etc/debian.conf or some such which could contain 'meta'
> information about things like this.
I am not a fan of this approach.
When I found SuSE linux, I was thrilled. (Primarily because it could
keep the X root menus in line with w
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 01:10:37AM -0500, Steve Robbins wrote:
> It was the thread started by someone whose /usr/local got wiped out that
> started me thinking. However, I think there is a principle at stake here:
> the principle that /usr/local is LOCAL. Whatever the other faults with
> FHS, I (
How about an /etc/debian.conf or some such which could contain 'meta'
information about things like this.
It could have an entry
update_local=yes
or similar and the directories in /usr/local would only be created if this
was true.
I personally like having the directories created by the package,
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> Keep in mind though, Steve posted this not out of some higher moral
> purpose, but because some poor user's /usr/local was deleted by a script
> somewhere.
Yes and no.
It was the thread started by someone whose /usr/local got wiped out that
started me
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 58759 [ACCEPTED] Request for new virtual packages: rsh-client and
> telnet-client
Bug#58759: Request for new virtual packages: rsh-client and telnet-client
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need as
retitle 58759 [ACCEPTED] Request for new virtual packages: rsh-client and
telnet-client
thanks
ARGGHH!!! How come I can never get this right first go :-(
--
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
retitle [ACCEPTED] Request for new virtual packages: rsh-client and
telnet-client
thanks
Sorry about my previous message to debian-policy, I accidently
sent it before I was ready.
According to /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/virtual-package-names-list.text.gz,
this is the next step in the process (
--- Begin Message ---
Topics:
Bug#58759: Request for new virtual packages: rsh-client and telnet-client
Bug#58759: Request for new virtual packages: rsh-client and telnet-client
--
Date: 23 Feb 2000 14:47:32 +1100
From:
15 matches
Mail list logo
