On Mon, 13 May 2002 07:47:35 +0100
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sounds better than my patch, and it seems to convey much of the information
> > that I tried to convey.
>
> Although sometimes this is not correct, for example if multiple
> co-operating packages use the same /usr/lib
On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 11:17:04AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit:
>
> > > How about simply:
> > >
> > > If your package includes run-time support programs that don't need to
> > > be invoked manually by the users, or named in a way that
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Josip Rodin wrote:
> This seems to be quite poorly worded... written in haste? :)
>
> How about simply:
>
> If your package includes run-time support programs that don't need to
> be invoked manually by the users, or named in a way that would cause
On Mon, 13 May 2002 01:57:55 +0900 (JST),
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2002 16:13:28 -0500,
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 09-May-02, 13:53 (CDT), Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > How about simply:
> > >
> > > If your package includes
On Fri, 10 May 2002 16:13:28 -0500,
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09-May-02, 13:53 (CDT), Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about simply:
> >
> > If your package includes run-time support programs that don't need to
> > be invoked manually by the users, or named
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 04:13:28PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > How about simply:
> >
> > If your package includes run-time support programs that don't need to
> > be invoked manually by the users, or named in a way that would cause
> > conflicts if placed in $PATH, but are nevertheless
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit:
> > How about simply:
> >
> > If your package includes run-time support programs that don't need to
> > be invoked manually by the users, or named in a way that would cause
> > conflicts if placed in $PATH, but are nevertheless require
On 09-May-02, 13:53 (CDT), Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about simply:
>
> If your package includes run-time support programs that don't need to
> be invoked manually by the users, or named in a way that would cause
> conflicts if placed in $PATH, but are nevertheless require
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 01:12:27AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> + If your package has some run-time support programs that
> + are required by the shared library, or some unversioned plugin
> + .so files, that may be part of the shared library package.
> + However,
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 05:41:20PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Junichi" == Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Junichi> I think this was discussed enough in -devel already, but
> Junichi> some good points about /libexec was given. I've noticed
> Junichi> that some known good pr
>>"Junichi" == Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Junichi> I think this was discussed enough in -devel already, but
Junichi> some good points about /libexec was given. I've noticed
Junichi> that some known good practice is not documented in policy,
Firstly, there is no such c
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
I think this was discussed enough in -devel already, but
some good points about /libexec was given.
I've noticed that some known good practice is not documented in policy,
and I propose the following patch:
>diff -u policy.sgml{.orig,}
--- policy.sgml.o
12 matches
Mail list logo
