* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020506 15:47]:
> >>"Grant" == Grant Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Grant> As I've argued late last year [1] Debian should take the necessary
> Grant> Policy steps to move forward with LSB adoption.
>
> If LSB adoption means that LSB packages sh
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 05:19:07PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > Debian is more than GNU/Linux. I see no reason why Debian GNU/Hurd and
> > Debian *BSD should follow the LSB.
>
> This is a discussion we should be having after the release on a forum
> like de
>>"Junichi" == Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Junichi> I think this was discussed enough in -devel already, but
Junichi> some good points about /libexec was given. I've noticed
Junichi> that some known good practice is not documented in policy,
Firstly, there is no such c
>>"Craig" == Craig Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Craig> Should Debian scripts be following the LSB and if so, why
Craig> doesn't the policy either mention the LSB or have the same
Craig> standards?
Why on earth should debian init scripts follow the
requirements for distribution a
>>"Grant" == Grant Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Grant> As I've argued late last year [1] Debian should take the necessary
Grant> Policy steps to move forward with LSB adoption.
If LSB adoption means that LSB packages shuold be able to run
on Debian, yes.
Grant> Init scripts [2]
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 04:49:53PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> Debian is more than GNU/Linux. I see no reason why Debian GNU/Hurd and
> Debian *BSD should follow the LSB. Debian GNU/Hurd is following the
> GNU standards instead of the LSB. Debian *BSD won't follow the LSB
> either, I think they
On May 06, Craig Small wrote:
> I have got bug #138251 which talks about the init.d script and how it
> is missing some nices things etc.
>
> Should Debian scripts be following the LSB and if so, why doesn't the
> policy either mention the LSB or have the same standards?
FWIW, the current editi
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 09:02:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Adam" == Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> We(Wichert and I) implement features that users want, when we
Adam> have time. We implement those that are interesting t
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:59:36PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Julian> People *used* to make that complaint. And if we now move to having a
> Julian> lean policy standards document and a developers reference and a best
> Julian> programming advice document and a dpkg documentation document
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:02:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If the dpkg authors would like to hand off some of their design decisions
> to -policy on a generalised basis, I'm sure they'd say so. It seems a bit,
> well, wrong-headed for -policy to be trying to take control of dpkg though.
Quit
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 09:34:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 10:09:11AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Part I: The Debian Archive
> > 1: DFSG and the sections of the archive (free, non-free, contrib, non-us)
>
>
> "Components" is a much bet
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 12:12:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:08:51AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > I don't care about now, I care about the next release, or the release
> > after that.
>
> Then how about you spend a moment thinking about it from _my_ perspective
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
I think this was discussed enough in -devel already, but
some good points about /libexec was given.
I've noticed that some known good practice is not documented in policy,
and I propose the following patch:
>diff -u policy.sgml{.orig,}
--- policy.sgml.o
* Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020506 08:25]:
> Previously Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > Debian is more than GNU/Linux. I see no reason why Debian GNU/Hurd and
> > Debian *BSD should follow the LSB.
>
> This is a discussion we should be having after the release on a forum
> like debian-projec
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 12:12:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:08:51AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > I don't care about now, I care about the next release, or the release
> > after that.
>
> Then how about you spend a moment thinking about it from _my_ perspective
Previously Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> Debian is more than GNU/Linux. I see no reason why Debian GNU/Hurd and
> Debian *BSD should follow the LSB.
This is a discussion we should be having after the release on a forum
like debian-project.
FWIW, I think we should try to use the LSB as much as possible
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 01:16:09PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> Hello,
> I have got bug #138251 which talks about the init.d script and how it
> is missing some nices things etc.
>
> Should Debian scripts be following the LSB and if so, why doesn't the
> policy either mention the LSB or have the
FROM:MRS. M. SESE-SEKO
DEAR FRIEND,
I AM MRS. MARIAM SESE-SEKO WIDOW OF LATE PRESIDENT
MOBUTU SESE-SEKO OF ZAIRE? NOW KNOWN AS DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC OF CONGO
(DRC). I AM MOVED TO WRITE YOU THIS LETTER, THIS WAS IN
CONFIDENCE
CONSIDERING MY PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE AND SITUATION.
I ESCAPED A
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:08:51AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I don't care about now, I care about the next release, or the release
> after that.
Then how about you spend a moment thinking about it from _my_ perspective
and stop whining until the next release or the release after that. Yeesh
Previously Grant Bowman wrote:
> As I've argued late last year [1] Debian should take the necessary
> Policy steps to move forward with LSB adoption.
I agree, but I would like to add we should wait until woody is released.
Wichert.
--
__
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 09:02:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Adam" == Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adam> We(Wichert and I) implement features that users want, when we
> Adam> have time. We implement those that are interesting to us when
> Adam> we have free time. I don't
http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/images/riscado_cinza.gif";>
http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/mailing/images/logo.jpg";
width="580" height="49">
http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/mailing/images/topo.jpg"; width="580"
height="93">
* Craig Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020505 20:19]:
> I have got bug #138251 which talks about the init.d script and how it
> is missing some nices things etc.
>
> Should Debian scripts be following the LSB and if so, why doesn't the
> policy either mention the LSB or have the same standards?
>
>
23 matches
Mail list logo
