On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 05:28:05PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > What I am objecting to is wording in policy to the effect that we should
> > do something, followed by "don't do this for potato". Especially if it
> > doesn't really matter if it's done for potato or not.
>
> So maybe we both agr
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> [...]
> What I am objecting to is wording in policy to the effect that we should
> do something, followed by "don't do this for potato". Especially if it
> doesn't really matter if it's done for potato or not.
So maybe we both agree that a policy which
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 09:32:33PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Maybe we should require that a formal objection should need 5
> > seconds, and a formal objection automatically sends the proposal to
> > the tech ctte for resolution? The ctte could always refuse to take
> > action, but they
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Maybe we should require that a formal objection should need 5
> seconds, and a formal objection automatically sends the proposal to
> the tech ctte for resolution? The ctte could always refuse to take
> action, but they also choose to refute the objection, and r
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 03:01:46PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I *never* talked about severity levels of bugs. You say FHS is not
> release-critical for potato, and I agree, but this does *not* mean that we
> don't have to switch to FHS.
You're right, we do have to switch. Not all at once.
>
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 01:09:22PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
*> > > > For this reason we have to be careful in the wording.
> > >
> > > No we don't. =p I have no intention of recompiling all of my packages
> > > for policy 3 before we release potato
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 01:09:22PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > For this reason we have to be careful in the wording.
> >
> > No we don't. =p I have no intention of recompiling all of my packages
> > for policy 3 before we release potato. Most people don't. (Most of mine
> > have gotten r
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > FHS issues should not be bugs in potato---next version maybe, but not
> > > potato, I agree.
> >
> > For this reason we have to be careful in the wording.
>
> No we don't. =p I have no intention of recompiling all of my packages
> for policy 3 be
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 10:36:20PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Then you have not being paying attention to this list. 5
> formal objections shot down a proposal less than a week ago.
Five, yes. This was one - and more of a statement of intent than actual
invoking of the thing.
>
Hi,
>>"Antti-Juhani" == Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Antti-Juhani> On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:39:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I think I am beginning to think that the formal objection
>> clause is a mistake. Here you are, cutting off any discussion on
>> this, n
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 07:44:29PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > I don't want to go and add cruft to the policy that says essentially "This
> > is policy but you shouldn't go out and reupload all of your packages so
> > they do things the new way just because there's a new policy."
>
>
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:39:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think I am beginning to think that the formal objection
> clause is a mistake. Here you are, cutting off any discussion on
> this, no effort to seek a compromise, just a flat, uncompromising
> ultimatum that shall kill
Hi,
This is not a personal attack on Antti-Juhani, but just
happens to be the latest example of a distressing trend that is
gaining popularity in this group, which, unless moderated, shall
nullify the efficacy of an informal policy building mechanism.
>>"Antti-Juhani" == Antti-Juhani
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 05:28:00AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I'd like to assume some common sense on the part of developers.
Specifications (and that's what Policy is) should never assume anything
it doesn't have to assume - too many things can go wrong (like, people
having different definitio
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 02:08:25PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > I don't think we should try to enforce that people use /var/mail now, it's
> > just good to get it into the policy now.
>
> So: Could you modify your proposal so that the change from /var/spool/mail
> to /var/mail is postponed afte
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:49:13PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > I dislike the idea of packages pre-depending on a specific version of
> > > > base-files, this imposes a certain order in the upgrade.
> > > >
> > > > I think there is no hurry and w
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:49:13PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > I dislike the idea of packages pre-depending on a specific version of
> > > base-files, this imposes a certain order in the upgrade.
> > >
> > > I think there is no hurry and we should stick to /var/spool/mail for
> > > potato.
>
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:20:31PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > I'd say actually that any package using /var/mail should depend on the
> > > approprate base-files and we could do this for potato even.
> >
> > You would have to use Pre-Depends, beca
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:20:31PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > I'd say actually that any package using /var/mail should depend on the
> > approprate base-files and we could do this for potato even.
>
> You would have to use Pre-Depends, because as soon as you
> unpack a mail reader using /var/
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 01:45:47PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > If we agree on this, a possible plan would be:
> >
> > potato:
> > Packages reference /var/spool/mail internally.
> > base-files creates a symlink /var/mail -> /var/spool/mail
> >
>
Hi,
>>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This way, people would be free to move /var/spool/mail/* to /var/mail/*
>> at their discretion, but this is never done automatically by the system.
Joseph> That was the point of the suggestion. There was actually a
Joseph> bug to
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 01:45:47PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> If we agree on this, a possible plan would be:
>
> potato:
> Packages reference /var/spool/mail internally.
> base-files creates a symlink /var/mail -> /var/spool/mail
>
> potato+1: Packages reference /var/mail internally.
> *
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> [...] My suggestion is
> that we do not move /var/spool/mail on existing systems and instead simply
> create a symlink from /var/mail and call it good. /var/mail should be the
> directory on a new system, though the compatibility symlink should be
> cre
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 05:32:42PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I see that the policy manual has been changed (s3.1) to require FHS
> compliance rather than FSSTND compliance.
>
> I'd like to make two proposals:
>
> * That we make an exception for /var/state. Ie, we mandate that
> packages us /va
At 17:32 +0100 1999-07-25, Ian Jackson wrote:
I see that the policy manual has been changed (s3.1) to require FHS
compliance rather than FSSTND compliance.
I'd like to make two proposals:
* That we make an exception for /var/state. Ie, we mandate that
packages us /var/lib. This change has no
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 05:32:42PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'd like to make two proposals:
>
> * That we make an exception for /var/state.
...
> * That we make an exception for /var/mail.
These both exceptions are already part of Policy and AFAIK will also
be part of the next version of FHS.
I see that the policy manual has been changed (s3.1) to require FHS
compliance rather than FSSTND compliance.
I'd like to make two proposals:
* That we make an exception for /var/state. Ie, we mandate that
packages us /var/lib. This change has no purpose and will only be
hassle for us.
* That
27 matches
Mail list logo
