-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 06 May 2002 4:16 am, 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
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 07:17:12PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
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
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 01:57:51PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
No, the purpose of the LSB is to provide a standard ABI and API for
applications to link and program against, whether or not the
underlying system has the Linux kernel or not.
It has a strange name for that purpose. Is it
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 05:41:20PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
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
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:02:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I'm concerned about this because when I tried passing over
release-critical policy issues to the policy group, it didn't work. [..]
Strawman (to quote lots of
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 07:17:12PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Debian development is asynchronous.
That's a nice idea in theory.
It just to be true before we had testing.
Wichert.
--
_
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:19:54PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Then each section could either have the structure:
Policy dictate s
Discussion, useful information, guidelines, examples
or we could merge them, and have policy dictates all in the form MUST,
SHOULD, MAY, MUST NOT,
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
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,
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 08:02:04PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 07:17:12PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Debian development is asynchronous.
That's a nice idea in theory.
It just to be true before we had testing.
I can assure you
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 05:19:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony The real question is whether maintainers are meant to build
Anthony using the features of dpkg, or the ones listed in
*Sigh*. Let me see if I can dot the
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
I can assure you I had a lot less time to do stuff like fiddle with the
BTS when I was trying to get potato released.
And I can assure you I was doing a lot more work on new things while
still working on the potato release than I am doing now.
Wichert.
--
On 09-May-02, 12:48 (CDT), Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
My suggestion for a
policy rewrite it to move to the standard RFC uses of MUST and SHOULD,
and indication RC-ness in an orthogonal way.
In short, this
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 03:48:28AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:02:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I'm concerned about this because when I tried passing over
release-critical policy issues to the
-project Bcc'ed only.
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 11:17:28PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 04:02:47AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:19:54PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Then each section could either have the structure:
or we could merge
14 matches
Mail list logo
