On 2009-02-27 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
[...]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/05/msg00381.html with the best
choice appearantly being 87ve1faria@frosties.localdomain which
proposes that exim4 should
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.general Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Firstly, should we be pointing to the SuS instead of POSIX
(there is work going on a new version of the SUS), since it is open,
and readily available on th 'net, and people can readily see it (as
opposed to
On 30.12.03 17:50 Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:18:18AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Dan Jacobson wrote:
not restart the services on package upgrades. Broken ones still calling
/etc/init.d/whatever directly will, but that's a bug: report it
On 30.12.03 06:47 Vincent Bernat wrote:
OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du lundi 29 décembre 2003, vers 20:45,
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait:
. /etc/default/package # this contains RUN_package_AT_BOOT
test -z $RUN_package_AT_BOOT echo $0 | grep -q '^S' exit 0
After an upgrade,
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:31:49AM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
[...]
I've just read Policy on this issue again, and more carefully. I think
Policy is slightly broken, in its description of 'extra'
1. Extra can include packages that conflict with packages in
'required'. How can such packages
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 10:31:04PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Chris Waters dijo [Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 02:46:22PM -0800]:
But I still think that the vast majority of us would
disagree with a claim that a package homepage URL is merely
administrivia in any case.
Now, I suppose it could be
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 05:09:31PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 14:52, Raphael Goulais wrote:
On Thursday 20 November 2003 20:08, Joe Drew wrote:
Homepage: http://www.zope.org/Members/mjablonski/Epoz
I'm getting a little sick of seeing homepages in long
descriptions.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 12:38:39PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 02:25:13AM -0600, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis
wrote:
I appreciate your efforts, but i'm sorry: i still have not seen a reply to
last mail from Branden:
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:10:26PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Section 5.6 lists valid control fields, but omit Build-Depends et al,
which are mentionned in 7.6
Is it an oversight ?
They are listed in the overview-paragraph in 5.2 (The fields in the
general paragraph (the first one, for the
I am redirecting to debian-mentors, imho the more appropriate list.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:27:03PM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
In one of the package i maitain i have a config script which begin by
asking if the service attached to this package need to be run. I use a
variable ( stored in
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:03:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:59:24AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Choose one:
The first is to add a debian/rules.version with meaning:
debian/rules.version is present and is 1\n: build-arch and build-indep
are implemented
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 11:35:48PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
[1] Currently this is only possible with ugliness like making
build-indep an empty target and doing the actual expensive work in
binary-indep,
Some of the packages I maintain
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:59:24AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
1.3) Dpkg developer Adam Heath tried to implement the recipe above in
dpkg-buildpackage but reverted it since it was broken.
[...]
See changelog for 1.10.15.
1.4) dpkg-buildpackage -B call 'debian/rules build' and then
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 12:59:03PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 11:01:13AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:59:24AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
3.1) Provide an easy and reliable way to tell if the optional targets
are implemented.
And once
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 07:49:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 06:09:46PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
What are the real benefits from having build-arch and build-indep?
Are there really so many packages which would benefit
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 12:03:08AM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 217268 debian-policy
Bug#217268: Could -dev packages have their own category?
Bug reassigned from package `libgtk2.0-dev' to `debian-policy'.
Quoting James Troup:
retitle 203145 [PROPOSAL] Document Uploaders: field in policy
thanks
On 28 Jul 2003 10:09:09 +1000 Andrew Pollock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
I had to do a bit of Googling to find any reference on the Uploaders:
field in debian/control. I would have thought that this would turn up
in section 5.6 of
severity 209855 normal
retitle 209855 [AMENDMENT 15/09/2003] Move documentation of behavior of ancient
dpkg in 6.6 to a footnote
thank
This proposal has received two seconds:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In accordance
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:10:15AM -0400, Daniel Martin wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd propose a Policy amendment dropping support for this
long-obsolete dpkg behavior, but I reckon I've
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.0
Severity: wishlist
Policy 6.6 describing argumntsx given to postinst configure contains
this paragraph:
| If there is no most recently configured version dpkg will pass a null
| argument; older versions of dpkg may pass unknown (including the
| angle
[Resent, the news2mail gateway had swallowed the article]
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 04:59:43PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:20:06PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:35:36PM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 12:25:50AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Mark Baker wrote:
I believe exim4 should be the default mailer by the time sarge is
released, at least if its maintainers believe it is stable enough (I'm
now using it myself on my server, and I believe that it is).
Has there been
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Specifically, quota stuff. Every tree but Marcello's has implemented 32
bit quotas, as far as I know, but not his. So 32 bit quotas aren't
official yet. Might need Xu to patch the default kernel images.
Marcello has enabled them in 2.4.22-pre4:
|
Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the thread on debian-devel about
Generally accepted cut-off limit for -doc packages
[...]
showed that we need some policy about a reasonable size of -doc packages.
[...]
Imvho this does not belong into the Debian-policy manual, but in
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've spent a few hours rewriting the Policy Manual to merge in the field
stuff from the Packaging Manual, and to crossreference the whole thing
properly. In the process I moved a lot of stuff around, and also changed
some sect to chapts, sect1s to sects
25 matches
Mail list logo
