Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think checkbashisms and posh are an improvement over just suggesting
>> bash (and checkbashisms, in particular, is much easier to use), so my
>> inclination is to stick with the new wording and leave the further details
>> for other tools.
> I a
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
I guess the concern is that you feel this language implies that packages
aren't allowed to support non-FHS configuration? Would this be better?
The location of all files and directories must comply with the
File
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think checkbashisms and posh are an improvement over just suggesting
> bash (and checkbashisms, in particular, is much easier to use), so my
> inclination is to stick with the new wording and leave the further details
> for other tools.
I assume by 'bash' you mean 'dash' a
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> I guess the concern is that you feel this language implies that packages
>>> aren't allowed to support non-FHS configuration? Would this be better?
>>>
>>> The location of all files and directories must comply with
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I guess the concern is that you feel this language implies that packages
>> aren't allowed to support non-FHS configuration? Would this be better?
>>
>> The location of all files and directories must comply with the
>> Filesystem
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I guess the concern is that you feel this language implies that packages
> aren't allowed to support non-FHS configuration? Would this be better?
>
> The location of all files and directories must comply with the
> Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS), ver
"Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> * Russ Allbery [120227 19:03]:
>> Could you be more specific about exactly what behavior you're worried
>> about? I thought about this for a while before making this change and
>> can't think of any place where this would realistically affect
>> packages.
>> Note a
* Russ Allbery [120227 19:03]:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
> > Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> + The location of all files and directories must comply with the
> >> + Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS)
>
> > Unfortunately, I don't think that matches the old intent. This sounds
> > like a r
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> +The location of all files and directories must comply with the
>> +Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS)
> Unfortunately, I don't think that matches the old intent. This sounds
> like a restriction on the admin. I'm particularly w
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> I tend to find checking syntax ($shell -n) and running with "bash",
> "dash", "mksh", and "ksh93" more useful than posh for checking that a
> script is portable to the main POSIX-style shells in common use.
I certainly understand your point here, but I think this is the
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Part of the goal of waiting until we were in release freeze was precisely
> so that it was clear that people shouldn't target wheezy with updates for
> this version of Policy. Maybe we should make that explicit by declining
> to release the new version in
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here's the patch I applied.
Looks good. Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120227094548.GG10740@burratino
Russ Allbery wrote:
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -6169,11 +6169,11 @@ install -m644 debian/shlibs.package
> debian/package/DEBIAN/
> File System Structure
>
>
> - The location of all installed files and directories must
> - comply with the Filesy
Russ Allbery wrote:
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -7968,10 +7968,12 @@ fname () {
[...]
> - as its interpreter. If your script works with dash
> - (originally called ash), it probably complies with
> - the above requirements, but if you are in doubt, use
> -
Le Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:45:02AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> I think that the lack of a copyright statement is a feature, not a bug.
> The only purpose that a copyright notice serves under Berne is to
> establish additional statutory damages in some countries like the US (by
> meeting the
(I know you both read debian-policy, but it always feels weird to address
direct questions to people without cc'ing them so they get direct mail, so
you get direct mail because of my weird sense of etiquette. Sorry if it's
just annoying.)
A specific question for Steve and Charles
The current
16 matches
Mail list logo
