On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 01:05:13AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Marcus> You're correct. The old prerm script is called before an
> Marcus> update. This makes my analysis wrong indeed. The prerm
> Marcus> scripts can go aft
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. I said that under the guidelines, there has been no
> provision to reopen proposals that were rejected under the same
> guidelines. People are not really constrained to follow the
> guidelines.
I don't see anything in the guidelines t
Hi,
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 01:05:13AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Marcus> Correct. I would like to see the proposal revived, with the
>> Wold it not have been better to talk first, and shoot
>> afterwards? At the moment, there is no provision
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 01:05:13AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Marcus> Correct. I would like to see the proposal revived, with the
> Wold it not have been better to talk first, and shoot
> afterwards? At the moment, there is no provision for reviving
> proposals that have been kille
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> You're correct. The old prerm script is called before an
Marcus> update. This makes my analysis wrong indeed. The prerm
Marcus> scripts can go after the transition. I apologize for giving
Marcus> this wrong information. Ho
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> > > 1. mv /usr/doc/* /usr/share/doc
>
> This isn't trivial, because you cannot be sure that /usr/doc and
> /usr/share/doc are located at the same filesystem.
> And don't miss the (few) packages which alr
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 10:57:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 06:08:33PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 01:50:39AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > So all new packages will have to depend on this particular version of
> > > > base-files or n
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 04:54:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> postinst install:
^^^
also at upgrade.
> if [ -d /usr/doc ]; then
> if [ ! -e /usr/doc/$package -a -d /usr/share/doc/$package ]; then
> ln -s /usr/share/doc/$package
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 06:08:33PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 01:50:39AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > So all new packages will have to depend on this particular version of
> > > base-files or newer, or there is still no guarantee that the link gets
> > > removed.
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 01:50:39AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So all new packages will have to depend on this particular version of
> > base-files or newer, or there is still no guarantee that the link gets
> > removed.
>
> Erm, no, they don't need to declare any such dependency -- the packag
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 12:40:39AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> * Stick with /usr/doc until potato is released, then begin a massive
> migration, which may or may not involve symlinks.
> - we can't pretend FHS compliance (but we couldn't anyway).
> - some people have already moved and m
Anthony Towns writes:
> Let me summarise the proposals so far as I see them: (in order of my
> personal preference)
> * symlinks managed by postinst/prerm
> - requires lots of packages to add postinsts/prerms for potato
>and woody, and then to get rid of them for woody+1
> - m
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 08:20:18PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > I'm tempted to object to any such proposal that doesn't have the support
> > of Ian Jackson or Klee Dienes or someone equally familiar with dpkg
> > internals.
> Then provide a better option. I'm beginning to agree with Manoj here.
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 01:07:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 07:55:13PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > read "mv" as "cp, verify success, rm old, create symlink, and the whole
> > time deal with things like dropped .dhelp files in /usr/doc while the rest
> > of the packa
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 07:55:13PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> read "mv" as "cp, verify success, rm old, create symlink, and the whole
> time deal with things like dropped .dhelp files in /usr/doc while the rest
> of the package has moved to /usr/share/doc already"
...which of course means if yo
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 03:51:47PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> > > 1. mv /usr/doc/* /usr/share/doc
>
> This isn't trivial, because you cannot be sure that /usr/doc and
> /usr/share/doc are located at the same filesystem.
> And don't miss the (few
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 03:53:47PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 04:54:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Then for woody+1 we let people drop the scripts whenever they feel
> > like. Crufty symlinks get removed when everyone updates to a new
> > base-files that rm's sym
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Not an option? You're missing my point again. I've got
Chris> packages installed that are 2.4.0. In many cases, these are
Chris> the latest, up-to-date versions. Ok, my hypothetical
Chris> Mr. A. S. Shole (the name says it a
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > 1. mv /usr/doc/* /usr/share/doc
This isn't trivial, because you cannot be sure that /usr/doc and
/usr/share/doc are located at the same filesystem.
And don't miss the (few) packages which already moved to
/usr/share/doc (where some of them left back a
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 03:18:13PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> > e) pointless if the package maintainer does not move change the next
> >version of the package to use /usr/share/doc
>
> Nothing prevents you from running the script again after up
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 04:54:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Then for woody+1 we let people drop the scripts whenever they feel
> like. Crufty symlinks get removed when everyone updates to a new
> base-files that rm's symlinks from within /usr/doc in its postinst on
> upgrade, or something
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> e) pointless if the package maintainer does not move change the next
>version of the package to use /usr/share/doc
Nothing prevents you from running the script again after upgrading to
potato+1, if there are actually packages with /usr/doc left in p
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 01:21:32PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> What I would like to see is a package containing a script which does *two*
> things:
>
> 1. mv /usr/doc/* /usr/share/doc
> 2. Modify dpkg's internal databases (mainly the .list files in the
> directory /var/lib/dpkg/info) so that the
Hi,
What I would like to see is a package containing a script which does *two*
things:
1. mv /usr/doc/* /usr/share/doc
2. Modify dpkg's internal databases (mainly the .list files in the
directory /var/lib/dpkg/info) so that they are in sync with the
previous changes.
This
a) would make the syst
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Until the (quote: ``future version of policy'' comes out, the
> package in questin (wonko, unless you have forgotten), is in
> violation of the current policy version, (which, in this example,
> happens to be 3.0.0.1). Saying you are stick
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 01:08:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Anthony> FWIW, I don't think forcing all packages to have postinst's
> Anthony> and prerm's for the rest of eternity to be a particularly
> Anthony> good solution either.
> You don't need it for the rest of eternity. We
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> It may be too late. We *NEED* consensus on this sort of thing:
>> No, we do not need a consensus. The DPL can still m
Hi,
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> FWIW, I don't think forcing all packages to have postinst's
Anthony> and prerm's for the rest of eternity to be a particularly
Anthony> good solution either.
You don't need it for the rest of eternity. We create the
postinst,
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 11:25:41PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > /usr# mv doc share/doc/usrdoc
> > /usr# ln -s /usr/share/doc/usrdoc doc
> >
> > dpkg would deal with that and the docs would all be under /usr/share/doc
> > (though not /usr/share/doc/${PACKAGE}) which makes things still not as
>
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> /usr# mv doc share/doc/usrdoc
> /usr# ln -s /usr/share/doc/usrdoc doc
>
> dpkg would deal with that and the docs would all be under /usr/share/doc
> (though not /usr/share/doc/${PACKAGE}) which makes things still not as
> ælegant as they should be.
Ho
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris> It may be too late. We *NEED* consensus on this sort of thing:
> No, we do not need a consensus. The DPL can still mandate a
> solution by fiat, thank god.
Man, your reading
On Jul 29, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Another option is to provide a package whose job is monitor the
> directories in /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc, and maintain the
> /usr/doc/ -> /usr/share/doc/ links as needed. A sysadmin who
> needed/wanted the links could install the package, one who doesn't
> wo
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 10:52:36PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> A cronjob is a bad idea because the links will persist for dpkg operations
> and basically cause upgrades/downgrades to fail.
>
> There is no elegant way to piece wise move a directory spanning multiple
> packages with dpkg.
/usr#
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> FWIW, I don't think forcing all packages to have postinst's and prerm's
> for the rest of eternity to be a particularly good solution either. Are
> there any fundamental problems with using a cronjob instead?
This was just discussed on irc a bit.. Ah,
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 10:41:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Chris> It may be too late. We *NEED* consensus on this sort of thing:
> No, we do not need a consensus. The DPL can still mandate a
> solution by fiat, thank god.
What?
Since when is the DPL mandating a solution bett
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Please hold off that for a week or so. There are
>> constitutional methods for getting contentious stuff into the plicy
>> document, and this seems like an ideal scenario for one of
On 28-Jul-99, 21:37 (CDT), Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And then there are the people who think that we should just say screw
> backwards compatibility and just move the directories without bothering
> with transition. Unfortunately many of them are already uploading
> packages, whi
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please hold off that for a week or so. There are
> constitutional methods for getting contentious stuff into the plicy
> document, and this seems like an ideal scenario for one of them.
It may be too late. We *NEED* consensus on this sort
Joseph Carter wrote:
> Just enough people don't like symlinks to make that not a consensus.
>
> Just enough people don't like trying to move entire trees to make that not
> a consensus.
>
> Just enough people want us not to move anything at all (screw the FHS and
> standards, right? (can you tel
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joey> I'm trying to decide if I should just give up and make
> Joey> debhelper use the FHS directories with no transition.
>
> Please hold off that for a week or so. There are
> constitutional methods for getting contentious stuff into the plicy
> document, an
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:49:30AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joseph> To be quite honest Joey, at this point I'd suggest you just
> Joseph> take one of the workable solutions we've discussed and just
> Joseph> implement the damned things in debhelper, and make it known
> Joseph> how you'v
Hi,
>>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> To be quite honest Joey, at this point I'd suggest you just
Joseph> take one of the workable solutions we've discussed and just
Joseph> implement the damned things in debhelper, and make it known
Joseph> how you've done it. F
Hi,
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> There is no policy prohibiting such a move, on the ocntrary,
>> policy dictates that a move like that happen.
Joey> So is it your opinion that we should just give up and move?
Almost ;-). I do thi
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 03:26:22PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Giuliano> Unfortunately, various people have pre-empted the policy
> > Giuliano> discussion and have started using /usr/share/doc already.
> >
> > There is no policy prohibiting such a move, on the ocntrary,
> > policy dicta
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Giuliano> Unfortunately, various people have pre-empted the policy
> Giuliano> discussion and have started using /usr/share/doc already.
>
> There is no policy prohibiting such a move, on the ocntrary,
> policy dictates that a move like that happen.
So is it
On 27-Jul-99, 14:43 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We would liek to think that fellow maintainers are total incompetents
> and can manage a simple symlink.
I hope there is a "not" missing from that sentence :-). Even if I did
think so about someone, I wouldn't *like* it.
Hi,
>>"Giuliano" == Giuliano Procida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Giuliano> Has no one seriously considered the mess that will happen
Giuliano> if you try to follow this path (namely, making each package
Giuliano> manage the transition by itself)? Think about all the typos
Giuliano> (like "[-L
Regarding the share/doc proposal. My apologies if this repeating
someone else's comments, I have not read all the messages in the
threads.
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:35:04PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Usr/share/doc vs. /usr/doc (#40706)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed by Manoj Srivastava; se
48 matches
Mail list logo
