Hi, I'm a happy debian user, I really estimate the huge work behind such a
magnificent project. I'd like to express a little doubt about policy (very
humble opinion): it seems like programs authors are considered like
marginal contributors. Dselect description doesn't even report their info
or
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 01:15:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
[Re-sent due to inability to properly address email.]
Section 10.2 of policy currently describes uid and gid classes covering
the range of 0-65535. This appears to no longer be comprehensive: on a
current system running a
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:04:20 +0200
Michele Alessandrini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I'm a happy debian user, I really estimate the huge work behind such a
magnificent project. I'd like to express a little doubt about policy (very
humble opinion): it seems like programs authors are considered
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.10.0
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
I think there is a missleading paragraph in the In the files chapter,
containing the recommendations for dpkg-statoverride usage. In the
particular case, the maintainer must case about how to call debconf and
the attached
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:04:20PM +0200, Michele Alessandrini wrote:
in debian policy they are called, 2 or 3 times, upstream authors, like
if maintainers (largely mentioned) were the main authors.
Actually, no, no harm is meant by mentioning Debian maintainers more than
upstream
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:04:20PM +0200, Michele Alessandrini wrote:
Hi, I'm a happy debian user, I really estimate the huge work behind such a
magnificent project. I'd like to express a little doubt about policy (very
humble opinion): it seems like programs authors are considered like
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:23:03AM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:15:09 -0500
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Section 10.2 of policy currently describes uid and gid classes covering
the range of 0-65535. This appears to no longer be comprehensive: on a
current
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 09:58:12AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 01:15:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
[Re-sent due to inability to properly address email.]
Section 10.2 of policy currently describes uid and gid classes covering
the range of 0-65535. This appears to
David B Harris dijo [Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:23:03AM -0400]:
I certainly agree with the general idea, as well as the specific
proposal of allocating 2^16 UIDs for Samba's idmap usage.
That being said, will Sarge release with the minimum requisites for the
2^32 UIDs? If so, I'm happy. But
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:15:54PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
David B Harris dijo [Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:23:03AM -0400]:
I certainly agree with the general idea, as well as the specific
proposal of allocating 2^16 UIDs for Samba's idmap usage.
That being said, will Sarge release with
Colin Watson wrote:
I'm slightly concerned by how we're going to map onto other systems'
uses of 32-bit uids here, since there will already be some. 0-99 and
6-64999 were reasonably obvious back in the day, but I don't have a
feel for how big systems are allocating uids now. I would be
Hi,
This discussion has been started in debian-devel, but as I saw that a
policy change is needed, I'm bringing it to the correct list.
Proposal:
Include a control file like conffiles into the debian package in a
way the dotfiles and directories in user's home directory can be easily
related
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:21:42PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
This discussion has been started in debian-devel, but as I saw that a
policy change is needed, I'm bringing it to the correct list.
Proposal:
Include a control file like conffiles into the debian package in a
way the dotfiles
13 matches
Mail list logo
