Bug#1062983: Developers Reference in A4 instead of US Letter

On Sun, 2024-02-04 at 19:25 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > I think for English at least I'd prefer to offer both A4 and letter, for eg > the German translation I think it's enough to only provide A4. Looks like that info can be gotten from the locales on glibc systems: $ LANG=en_AU.utf8 loc

Bug#907051: Finding rough consensus on level of vendoring for large upstreams

On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 10:39 PM Phil Morrell wrote: > Over this last year there seems to have been a noticeable divergence of > maintainer opinion, on what has become known as vendoring Embedded copies of code/etc have downsides ... https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCopies > It is my reading of t

Bug#662998: debian-policy: stripping static libraries

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 13:55:02 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 23:03:59 +0100 Jakub Wilk wrote: > > > Can we make stripping static libraries a Policy “should”? > > I note that Fedora is going the opposite way. They are currently > stripping static libraries and a

Bug#940144: developers-reference: document self-service givebacks in wanna-build section

. -- Paul Wise [1] https://debblog.philkern.de/2019/08/alpha-self-service-buildd-givebacks.html [2] https://sso.debian.org/ https://debblog.philkern.de/2019/08/alpha-self-service-buildd-givebacks.html Alpha: Self-service buildd givebacks Builds on Debian's build farm sometimes

Bug#910783: Remove doc-base recommendation

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:32:52 -0700 Sean Whitton wrote: > Instead, if there is indeed consensus, we should change it so that it > no longer says that doc-base registration is recommended. We need a cross-distro cross-desktop standard for an index of docs before we can move on from doc-base like we

Bug#824495: Use of the Build-Conflicts field

On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 12:00 PM Sean Whitton wrote: > Use of the Build-Conflicts field is currently mostly optional, but Ian > Jackson and I have been working on text for Debian Policy that would > require its use in certain cases. See #824495 for the discussion. Personally, the main RC use-cas

Bug#904413: debian-policy: HTML: link from section numbers in upgrading checklist to policy sections

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.5.0 Severity: wishlist In the HTML version of Policy it would be nice to have links from the section numbers in the upgrading checklist to the corresponding sections in the Policy document. This would help developers read the full sections as well as the descrip

Bug#904412: debian-policy: HTML: add secondary anchors for section numbers

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.5.0 Severity: wishlist It would be nice to have secondary anchors for section numbers so that I could just add #10.4 or #s10.1 (for example) to my browser URL to jump to the right section when someone references a particular Policy section on IRC or elsewhere.

Bug#813471: Seeking seconds for patch to permit some network access to localhost

On Mon, 2018-07-23 at 20:16 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > LGTM. It might be worth saying "the apt repository (both source and > binaries)". There are both packages which fetch .debs explicitly, and > packages which fetch sources explicitly (yes, this is not very good, > but consensus in a discussi

Bug#813471: Seeking seconds for patch to permit some network access to localhost

On Sun, 2018-07-22 at 10:41 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Basically I read "No required target may attempt network access via the > loopback interface (except if/when ...).". To me that implies /only/ > the loopback interface is restricted by that sentence (i.e. any other > network interface is n

Re: get-orig-source and standardized source repacking (was: Debian Policy 4.1.4.0 released)

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: > I fully share your view that the optimal situation would be if uscan > would be some kind of wrapper around whatever code would be needed to > create the source tarball. Since I share this view I once started to > hack Files-Excluded into usc

Bug#892142: debian-policy: update example to use default-mta instead of exim

On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 17:12 -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > How about this patch? Looks good to me. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#892142: debian-policy: update example to use default-mta instead of exim

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.3.0 Severity: minor In Policy 7.1. Syntax of relationship fields, there is an example: For example, a list of dependencies might appear as: Package: mutt Version: 1.3.17-1 Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.1), exim | mail-transport-agent I would like to sugg

[developers-reference] branch master updated (ee6157d -> e586826)

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. pabs pushed a change to branch master in repository developers-reference. from ee6157d just update wordwrap new e586826 Fix spelling, grammar, capitalisation and wording issues The 1 revisions listed above as "

[developers-reference] 01/01: Fix spelling, grammar, capitalisation and wording issues

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. pabs pushed a commit to branch master in repository developers-reference. commit e5868261174693a5a4f3f44282d292794d7d Author: Paul Wise Date: Sun Nov 5 09:35:26 2017 +0800 Fix spelling, grammar, capitalisation and

Re: Bug#877337: www.debian.org: Switch back to single page version of Policy Manual

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Sean Whitton wrote: > - installing the policy.html/ dir as > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/; > - copying policy-1.html into that dir; and > - telling Apache to serve policy-1.html as the directory index? Correct. > I'm a little worried people could be

Re: www.debian.org: Switch back to single page version of Policy Manual

On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 09:33:52 -0700 Sean Whitton wrote: > We (the active Policy Team members) think that the single page version > is more suitable for Debian's web mirrors. This is because it is more > useful for newcomers: with the single page version, it is possible to > use your browser's sear

Bug#877573: policy-1.html: invalid links to index.html genindex.html search.html

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.1.0 Severity: important File: /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy-1.html Usertags: offline The policy-1.html file contains many invalid links to index.html and single invalid links to genindex.html and search.html. This means that offline readers will get broke

Bug#873456: debian-policy: missing anchor: document-index

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.0.0 Severity: minor There are several links that point to the document-index anchor, but it is not available in the document. This is especially annoying for users of text-based browsers because it means that there is no easy way to get to the Table of Contents,

Bug#798476: Maintainer information in source packages (was: Re: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans)

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > So I have been wondering several times whether we should move the > maintainer information elsewhere. For example, tracker.d.o could be > extended to record maintainer information. It could also understand > the concept of "teams" listing

Bug#865713: Please Start UTF-8 debian-policy Text Files with UTF-8 Signature

On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 19:49 -0700, Paul Hardy wrote: > 1) Serving debian-policy pages on Debian servers as UTF-8 documents, > as an interim measure. I think we would want to do this for all *.txt documents that are UTF-8 and available on the website. First we need the list of UTF-8 encoded text

Bug#865713: Please Start UTF-8 debian-policy Text Files with UTF-8 Signature

On Sun, 2017-06-25 at 16:07 -0700, Paul Hardy wrote: > Earlier today, I sent the GNU less maintainer a two-line patch to the > "charset.c" file after my original email to him. I'm no expert on the less source code, but it seems to me that it will also hide U+FEFF characters after the first one. I

Bug#865713: Declaring a charset of UTF-8 for policy files

On Sat, 2017-06-24 at 20:48 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Can't we just set the character set for the text files that come from > Debian Policy?  At least with Apache you can set character sets with > whatever granularity you want. Doesn't look like there are any files within the Debian Policy dir

Bug#865713: Declaring a charset of UTF-8 for policy files

On Sat, 2017-06-24 at 20:07 -0700, Paul Hardy wrote: > Three possibilities seem to exist, and I am fine with any one being chosen: > > 1) Use the UTF-8 signature in UTF-8 text files If this triggers browsers to use the right encoding, it seems reasonable to add it in the situation where the file

Bug#865713: Declaring a charset of UTF-8 for policy files

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Simon McVittie wrote: > For what it's worth, I agree that declaring the correct charset in HTTP > metadata is a better solution than prepending U+FEFF ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE > (aka the "byte-order mark") in the file content. Forcing every text file to UTF-8 isn

[developers-reference] branch master updated (0dc5821 -> 87211e0)

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. pabs pushed a change to branch master in repository developers-reference. from 0dc5821 clarify that the release team wants a source debdiff new 87211e0 Use mkdir -p instead of ignoring mkdir exit codes The 1 re

[developers-reference] 01/01: Use mkdir -p instead of ignoring mkdir exit codes

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. pabs pushed a commit to branch master in repository developers-reference. commit 87211e037bcc4a068bc4640521b1718cfce29049 Author: Paul Wise Date: Mon Jan 2 12:06:14 2017 +0800 Use mkdir -p instead of ignoring mkdir exit

Bug#662998: debian-policy: stripping static libraries

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 23:03:59 +0100 Jakub Wilk wrote: > Can we make stripping static libraries a Policy “should”? I note that Fedora is going the opposite way. They are currently stripping static libraries and are moving towards not stripping: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StaticLibraryDe

Bug#839885: developers-reference: reintroducing packages: update security issue metadata

Package: developers-reference Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: secur...@debian.org I would like to add a paragraph to the section about reintroducing packages so that people reintroducing packages check the security tracker metadata for the old package and update the metadata once it gets reintrod

Bug#813471: network access to the loopback device should be allowed

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 00:22:14 +0100 Guillem Jover wrote: > | For packages in the main archive, no required targets may attempt > | network access outside the current machine. I don't think this is quite enough, packages should only be allowed to access file/network resources that were created by th

[developers-reference] branch master updated (e63c32e -> b3a3512)

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. pabs pushed a change to branch master in repository developers-reference. from e63c32e Add some missing words new b3a3512 Fix missing spaces The 1 revisions listed above as "new" are entirely new to this reposi

[developers-reference] 01/01: Fix missing spaces

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. pabs pushed a commit to branch master in repository developers-reference. commit b3a351237470ae725673dae482928dee674613c9 Author: Paul Wise Date: Thu Mar 3 14:28:24 2016 +0800 Fix missing spaces --- po4a/po/developers

[developers-reference] 01/01: Add some missing words

ed-off-by: Paul Wise --- pkgs.dbk | 4 ++-- po4a/po/de.po| 4 ++-- po4a/po/developers-reference.pot | 4 ++-- po4a/po/fr.po| 4 ++-- po4a/po/ja.po| 4 ++-- po4a/po/ru.po| 4 ++-- 6 files chang

[developers-reference] branch master updated (7447369 -> e63c32e)

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. pabs pushed a change to branch master in repository developers-reference. from 7447369 Add bug closer for #806993, ftp-master mirror on mirror.ftp-master.debian.org new e63c32e Add some missing words The 1 rev

[developers-reference] branch master updated (e7121c8 -> fc56ee5)

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. pabs pushed a change to branch master in repository developers-reference. from e7121c8 Rebuild to fix issues with texlive fonts caused by #796120. Closes: #792009, #789391 new fc56ee5 Make it easier to update d

[developers-reference] 01/01: Make it easier to update devref for a new Debian release.

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. pabs pushed a commit to branch master in repository developers-reference. commit fc56ee5bbbfe406dc00bf6bf7572b77889bf8056 Author: Paul Wise Date: Thu Oct 15 23:33:52 2015 +0800 Make it easier to update devref for a new

Re: [developers-reference] [PATCH] Make it easier to update devref for a new Debian release.

On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 23:39 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > Make it easier to update devref for a new Debian release. FYI, I have fixed the build errors, compared the binary packages before/after the patch using diffoscope and pushed the patch to git. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulW

Re: [policy] [PATCH] Fix one call to gzip that was missing -n

On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 19:29 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh, I have been trying to explain that to the > lintian maintainers three time in a row without any success, so I started > to feel like a broken clock. No worries. > If you do not mind, please try to include

Re: [policy] [PATCH] Fix one call to gzip that was missing -n

On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 18:58 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > This is not needed, these files are not generated at build time, they are > simply copied to the build directory using 'install -p', which preserve > the timestamp, so the embedded timestamp inside the gzip file is the timestamp > of the o

[policy] [PATCH] Fix one call to gzip that was missing -n

--- debian/rules | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules index 2a3a76e..59b5679 100755 --- a/debian/rules +++ b/debian/rules @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ stamp-binary: stamp-build # # Compress files and build MD5 checksums. # - gzip -f9 $(DOC

[developers-reference] [PATCH] Make it easier to update devref for a new Debian release.

Move information about codenames/versions into the entities. Refer readers to the website for a list of obsolete releases. --- common.ent| 13 + pkgs.dbk | 13 ++--- resources.dbk | 19 --- 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git

[developers-reference] branch master updated (16c13ad -> de9303f)

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. pabs pushed a change to branch master in repository developers-reference. from 16c13ad Update POT and PO files new de9303f Update links from http to https where possible The 1 revisions listed above as "new" ar

improvements to the Developers Reference maintenance workflows?

Hi all, [Apologies for the CC in case some of the uploaders are subscribed] [Please CC me if you want me to read your response] Some of you may be aware there has been a discussion about devref on debian-private and debian-project, the threads started here: <20140613131135.ga7...@x61s.reliableso

Bug#750993: developers-reference: Please mention more lint-style tools

On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 13:06 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > To the list of generic lint-style tools, I'd add: > > scan-build (clang) > > and I got a (most probably outdated) list of tools here: > > Thanks, added most of these and m

Bug#750993: developers-reference: Please mention more lint-style tools

On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > There are several very useful lint-style tools that would be nice to > mention so that people are aware of them. Here's a non-exhaustive list > that would be nice to add: Here is a more exhaustive but still non-exhaustive list: htt

Bug#707851: Soften the the wording recommending menu files: let's do it in Jessie.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Bill Allombert wrote: > Debian menu is supported by much more window managers than the XDG menu draft. This issue is addressed by the xdg-menu system from Arch Linux. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xdg-menu For the awesome window manager there is also a s

Bug#736381: developers-reference: add Steam subscriptions to the list of goodies offered to Debian Developers

Please remember to CC bug submitters when relevant since they are usually not subscribed and I am definitely not. I can see both sides of this but I don't really mind which patch gets into devref, so, please choose a patch, add "Debian Maintainers" to it (since they were added after the announceme

Bug#726998: [debian-policy] any news ? Lintian implement some check now

On Mon, 2014-02-10 at 13:48 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > But practically, how is it possible to replace them by local resources ? Since most of the remote resources for social networks are non-free the options are to re-implement them or to just use text and links instead of JavaScript, CSS and

Bug#726998: [debian-policy] any news ? Lintian implement some check now

On Sun, 2014-02-09 at 23:11 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > I am not quite sure I understand your point about "Promotion of upstream > projects". > What example do you have in mind ? Some of the issues are to do with social networks - Twitter, Facebook, Google+, which are mostly used for promotio

Bug#726998: [debian-policy] any news ? Lintian implement some check now

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 03:25:45PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > Policy could include a word of warning about hypertext documentation. I reported #738176 against lintian because I noticed Debian contributors taking incorrect actions (for eg #738101) based on the lintian tag descriptions. Bastian

Bug#736381: developers-reference: add Steam subscriptions to the list of goodies offered to Debian Developers

On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 19:31 -0400, David Prévot wrote: > it may not be such a good idea to incite DD to install and use > non-free tools (as potential security issue) I have updated the patch to encourage Debian members to not install Steam on their Debian development machines. I think it is reas

Bug#736381: developers-reference: add Steam subscriptions to the list of goodies offered to Debian Developers

Package: developers-reference Severity: wishlist Tags: patch X-Debbugs-CC: jo.shie...@collabora.co.uk, neil.mcgov...@collabora.com Please add Steam subscriptions to the list of goodies offered to Debian Developers, Valve/Collabora recently announced[1] this. Patch attached. 1. http://lists.d

[PATCH] DEHS is no longer used or working, stop mentioning it

--- policy.sgml | 8 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index dad8d23..56b5881 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -2366,11 +2366,9 @@ endif This is an optional, recommended configuration file for the

Re: obsolete conffiles: s/may/should/

On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 15:18 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > In policy section 10.7.3 Behavior, there is this sentence: > > Obsolete configuration files without local changes may be > removed by the package during upgrade. > > I would like to suggest that "may&qu

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: > I paste below the current wording in the Policy 3.9.4. If you have an > improvement to propose, that would be much appreciated ! The wording doesn't appear confusing to me so I'm not the best person to propose wording changes. > The prob

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: > do you think that the attached patch would solve the problem ? There are more reasons for using Built-Using than licenses, for example: Rebuilding against updated versions of static libraries. Rebuilding the debian-installer-*-netboot-* pa

Re: obsolete conffiles: s/may/should/

On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 17:12 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > do we have an estimate (via piuparts ?) on how many packages are > failing to do that? piuparts does test for this, some stats: sid2experimental 23 testing2sid 12 squeeze2wheezy 209 squeeze2bpo2wheezy 36 lenny2squeeze 47 http://anonscm.

obsolete conffiles: s/may/should/

In policy section 10.7.3 Behavior, there is this sentence: Obsolete configuration files without local changes may be removed by the package during upgrade. I would like to suggest that "may" be replaced with "should". -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc

Bug#685039: developers-reference: please document what is needed to reintroduce a package

On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 08:51 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > Done in the attached patch, thanks. I didn't see the comments from Charles Plessy as I wasn't subscribed to the bug and he did not CC me. I've attached a new version adopting his suggestions. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.d

Bug#685039: developers-reference: please document what is needed to reintroduce a package

On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 13:28 +, Bart Martens wrote: > I'm looking at this now. I agree with most of your patch. I'm having doubts > on this paragraph : ... > I suggest to replace the paragraph quoted above by these two paragraphs : Done in the attached patch, thanks. Based on feedback from

Bug#685039: developers-reference: please document what is needed to reintroduce a package

On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 19:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > My patch does not seem to have been committed to the SVN repository, > could someone do that please? Apparently I need an ack on my patch to devref about the procedures needed when re-introducing packages. I would appreciate it if s

Bug#685039: developers-reference: please document what is needed to reintroduce a package

On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 11:43 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > I changed the sentence to make it clear that this is only triggered by > removals from unstable. Updated patch attached. My patch does not seem to have been committed to the SVN repository, could someone do that please? -- bye, pabs

Bug#685039: developers-reference: please document what is needed to reintroduce a package

On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 18:35 +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > Perhaps there should be a note making clear that only removal from unstable > (and experimental) is what is meant here; removals from testing do not give > cause to use this procedure. I changed the sentence to make it clear that

Bug#685039: developers-reference: please document what is needed to reintroduce a package

Package: developers-reference Severity: wishlist Tags: patch How to reintroduce packages isn't fully obvious to everybody and there some details that rely on services or information some folks don't know about. I have written a section for devref with the information I know about. Please apply the

Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is not documented

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > I think debian-policy is the right repository for this.  I think it would > make the most sense to maintain this via a looser update method than the > normal Policy process and to instead just apply any update that ftp-master > says is in place

Re: alternative dependency ordering - with respect of packages in main

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Ben Armstrong wrote: > While that neatly sidesteps the issue, 7.5 says: > >     To specify which of a set of real packages should be the default to >     satisfy a particular dependency on a virtual package, list the real >     package as an alternative before the

Re: alternative dependency ordering - with respect of packages in main

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: >  tl;dr - what do you think, is a "Depends: foo-contrib | foo" acceptable > for packages in main or should it be "Depends: foo | foo-contrib" > instead? I vote: Package: bar Depends: foo Package: foo-contrib Provides: foo -- bye, pabs h

Re: Static libraries in development packages

2011/4/16 Carl Fürstenberg: > Thus I think we should consider updating the policy to either specify > that a development package should provide a static library if > possible, or that it shouldn't provide unless there are reasonable > reasons for inclusions. IMO Debian should err on the side of n

Bug#586186: developers-reference: mention DD certificates in "Goodies for Developers" section

Package: developers-reference X-Debbugs-CC: lea...@debian.org Please mention that DDs can get official certification of their Debian project membership from the DPL. Some details are available here: http://wiki.debian.org/DDCertificate http://lists.debian.org/20100401011741.gp10...@einval.com I'

Bug#581603: developers-reference: please mention that DMs can now get HP-sponsored LWN subscriptions

Package: developers-reference Severity: wishlist DMs are now able to get HP-sponsored LWN subscriptions: http://www.gag.com/bdale/blog/posts/Debian_and_LWN.html It would be good if this could be mentioned in devref 4.13.1. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Descripti

Re: Removing the manpage requirement for GUI programs?

2010/2/28 Josselin Mouette : > currently policy §12.1 mandates that “each program, utility, and > function should have an associated manual page”. However, the more I > stomp on bug reports about manual pages, the less I am convinced of > their usefulness for GUI programs. How about replacing "an

Re: Flag images

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote: > I'm going to add into debian a few new (my) projects which need flag > images and so I want to add a package which contains flag set. Are you sure they need flags? Which package and what exactly will the flags represent? I would pers

Bug#564068: developers-reference: alioth section mentions GForge instead of FusionForge

Package: developers-reference Version: 3.4.3 Severity: minor X-Debbugs-CC: ad...@alioth.debian.org The alioth section[1] of the devref says that alioth runs GForge, which is no longer the case. I'd suggest that it be amended to remove mention of the software run on alioth altogether to avoid needi

Re: does /var/games have to be deleted on purge? (if it's empty..)

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Mittwoch, 8. April 2009, Bill Allombert wrote: >> Unless policy is changed to make clear that /var/games can be removed >> at any time, and thus that package cannot just ship /var/games in the >> deb and expect it to be available when runn

Re: does /var/games have to be deleted on purge? (if it's empty..)

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > I don't see much real benefit in going out of our way to remove /var/games > and it looks like it would be a bit annoying (at the least, require adding > purge code to all games that put files in /var/games that would usually > never be trigge