Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.1
Severity: wishlist
The policy says that postinst should run "update-rc.d ... defaults",
however this means that symlinks are reverted back upon all upgrades.
I have a large number of packages installed for testing, but I do not
want them started by default.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 16:18:47 +0100 (+), Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Dave Swegen wrote:
> > What I would like to see is a policy covering how cddb-capable programs
> > should behave. Perhaps this is outside the scope of Debian, but if it
> > isn't, and there seems to be some interes
On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 11:40:10 -0700 (+), Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> On 18-Jul-2000 Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> > Debian policy says:
> > 4.6. Device files
> > -
> > No package may include device files in the package file tree.
> &
Debian policy says:
4.6. Device files
-
No package may include device files in the package file tree.
If a package needs any special device files that are not included in the
base system, it has to call `makedev' in the `postinst' script, after asking
the user for permission to do
..but are they really worth putting in a bug report?
upgrading-checklist:
s/not all know/not all known/
in the .text verision:
- There is now anassi=ociated menu policy, in a separate document,
that carries the full weight of Debian policy.
that fourth word is misspelt!
Cheers
adri
On Sun, Jun 06, 1999 at 07:52:58PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
[snip]
>
> However, I do make 2 recommendations: that the time period be
> expressed in non-variable units (i.e. days or weeks), and the time
> period begins when the first NMU takes place. So my recommendation
> would be:
So 60 day
On Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:56:07PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Well, what I would like to see is a general policy about bugs, covering
> > all aspects of bug reporting, forwarding, severitying and closing. Who is
> > allowed to do that, and when. For example, how many times a
I've got a package with _loads_ of .html files, but I can't see if they
should be compressed or not. The policy-manual describes what to do for
info files and manpages, but not for HTML - it just falls under the
"compress unless it's small".
I've no idea which webserver can server .gz files uncom
There is _no way_ you will get people to comply 100% with policy. In
particular the FHS will be a problem (mostly with packages installing into
/opt).
Another item of note is user/group allocation.
Adrian
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.poboxes.com/adrian.bridgett
Windows NT - Unix in bet
On Fri, Jan 08, 1999 at 01:24:03PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Bill Mitchell wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > There are at least two possible ways in which commercial organizations
> > might release .debs: (1) via non-free on the debian distribution sites,
> > and (2) by putting the .deb
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 03:00:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> GPL v2, s3, last para, emph mine:
>If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
>access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
>access to copy the source code _from the same place_ cou
On Tue, Jul 21, 1998 at 05:23:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I agree that we should do this (have a character which sorts before
> anything, including the empty string), but we should not make it ~,
> because ~ is currently not legal in version numbers.
>
> We have two choices: (a) we can invent
I don't know if this would be possible, but it would be very impressive if
we could (optionally) re-run the appropriate scripts when a value changed.
For instance if "hostname" or "IP-address" changed, we could re-run all the
postinst scripts that needed them.
Probably too difficult and full of p
On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 04:58:09AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> There is something missing here. Some packages create files in
> postinst precicely because they do not want dpkg to handle these
> files. Examples of this are score files and other data/configuration
> files.
>
>
Just to throw a real situation at this, I'm packaging SOCKSv5 stuff.
Both the client and server packages use some configuration files in /etc.
The situation is this:
I can't provide default ones that work since everyones network is different
(I can provide example ones with the lines commented ou
On Wed, Apr 01, 1998 at 09:22:29AM -0500, Brian Mays wrote:
> Where should the links in /etc/alternatives point for X applications?
> Should they point to /usr/bin/X11/app-name or /usr/X11R6/bin/app-name?
> I can find nothing in Debian's policy manual that addresses this issue,
> and there currentl
On Fri, Feb 27, 1998 at 05:54:56PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> > - make the program setuid in the .deb file. Additionally, put this in the
> > postinst:
>
> No, games should not be `setuid', but `setgid games&#x
On Tue, Feb 24, 1998 at 10:22:51PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> Let me just comment on one clear question I've seen in the discussion:
> Should game's score files be tagged as conffile? I think the answer is
> clear: `no'.
Another check for lintian :-) - everything in /var/lib/games is a
On Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 09:30:51AM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> Recall, that we have decided to put X11 games into /usr/games instead of
> /usr/X11R6/bin.
>
> But where should manpages for X11 games go? I'd say they have to go into
> /usr/man/... instead of /usr/X11R6/man/... Any other opi
On Wed, Jan 21, 1998 at 03:59:03AM -0800, Guy Maor wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Braakman) writes:
>
> > I think that any of these measures would be preferable to introducing
> > a new class of "fixed but open" bugs. Such bugs would interfere with
> > the attempts to use the bug system as a
g me, but what do other people think - should
all postinst scripts "cd" somewhere safe before running /etc/init.d/...?
I've attached the bug report and Joey's reply below.
---cut-here---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Bug#17278: sysklogd: restart from root directory]
On Mon, Jan 19, 1998
On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 08:04:36PM +, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 06:59:58PM +, James Troup wrote:
>
> > > A quick check shows that ksh also does brace expansion, but (pd)ksh
> > > doesn't.
> >
> > 19:58:[EMAIL PROTECTED]| ~/temp $ksh
> > $echo {foo,blah}
> > foo blah
> >
On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 10:29:20PM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
>
> > I can't check with the original post, but personally I think that if a
> > script *does* use bash features then in addition to beginning "#!/bin/bash&qu
On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 10:40:43AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 12:08:47AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > Yes, I can only agree. But is bash actually completely POSIX-compliant
> > (and nothing more than that) when called as /bin/sh ?
>
> It would appear not:
>
> sh-2
On Wed, Jan 14, 1998 at 11:44:56AM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> > DEBIAN POLICY WEEKLY, #5 (January 13, 1998)
>
> I don't know what "states" proposed policies have, but I think it would be
> a good idea to add "tested" at the end of the list (if it's not already
> there). This state would mean tha
On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 01:05:45AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
>
> >
> > [Sorry to be offtopic a bit]
> >
> > "Remco" == Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I also think the
> > > link /bin/sh could be perfectly managed by the `alterna
On Wed, Jan 14, 1998 at 02:50:39PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 11:34:21PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > > Restrict your script to POSIX features when possible so that it may
> > > use /bin/sh as its in
On Fri, Dec 19, 1997 at 01:56:35PM -0500, Scott Ellis wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Santiago Vila wrote:
[snip policy]
> >
> > Could somebody please explain the rationale for having *all*
> > /etc/init.d/* scripts as conffiles?
[snip]
> You can deactivate OR CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR of the program b
28 matches
Mail list logo
