On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 11:22:35AM +0300, Matti Airas wrote:
> I never read a single word anywhere stating that Debian would be
> anti-commercial.
On the other hand, there's nothing stating that Debian has to bend to
commercial pressure, if that would compromise the technical quality of
the dist
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 04:07:15PM -0500, Pete Harlan wrote:
> So if Debian wants to define its runlevels differently than the
> standard, then it just has to adjust its LSB-install program to
> translate from one LSB runlevel to its local runlevel, and install the
> link in whatever directory it w
> The reason why the run levels are specified was to handle cases where
> An LSB application may wish to have some kind of daemon which is only
> running when X11/xdm is running.
>
> Now, we could have added yet another level of indirection (in computer
I'm probably missing something here, but
> Apt-get, while developed for Debian, is already used on several
> RPM-based distributions (Conectiva, Mandrake) as well, so it is not
> really a packaging format issue. ... although I miss it every single
> second when maintaining any Red Hat server at work...
apt-get doesn't function well o
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 12:20:54AM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote:
|
| I believe that any attempt to assign standardized meanings to
| runlevels falls into this category: It makes it easier to setup a
| system that does normal things in a normal configuration and easier
| for third parties to set up
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 05:49:10PM +0100, Eric E Moore wrote:
> Dave> Worse, though, is the case of a binary-only package which makes
> Dave> assumptions about running services based on runlevel. When it
> Dave> breaks because of customized runlevels, the admin _can't_ fix it
> Dave> except by goi
> "Dave" == Dave Sherohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> It's not that symmetric, I'm afraid.
Dave> Worse, though, is the case of a binary-only package which makes
Dave> assumptions about running services based on runlevel. When it
Dave> breaks because of customized runlevels, the admi
Dave Sherohman wrote:
> ... And, to me at least, `xdm stop` obviously means
> "shut xdm down", while `init 3` has no readily apparent relationship to
> X or xdm unless you're bringing outside knowledge with you.
>
Bingo. That's what the arguements boils down to.
What is most important IMHO, i
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 12:05:12PM +0100, Eric E Moore wrote:
> Ok, you don't define runlevels, admin with nonstandard runlevel scheme
> (runlevels meaning different things) has to move scripts around after
> software installs. You do, and guess what? an admin with nonstandard
> runlevels has to
Hi
Steve Greenland schrieb:
> I'd bet that very few people mess much with the default runlevels, and
> I'd further bet that most who do end up with something very similar to
> the LSB proposed system.
On PCs I'm fine with the setup we have now, and IMO it's just as
easy to rename some links in rc
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 05:28:01PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 03-Jul-01, 17:50 (CDT), Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:40:05PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >
> > the benifit is leaving what all 4 of those runlevels do solely up to
> > YOU not some
On 03-Jul-01, 17:50 (CDT), Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:40:05PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
>
> the benifit is leaving what all 4 of those runlevels do solely up to
> YOU not some so called standards body.
So we should get rid of the FHS as well? Perha
Matti Airas writes:
> I don't know about xdm, but there certainly are many daemons both
> existing and imaginable, that would benefit from running only when X is.
Then have them find out if X is running. Checking the runlevel is not a
reliable way to do that.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jo
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 03:53:57PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> so this runlevel business is soley about X. fine, i can think of NO
> daemon that relies on xdm being running off hand. certianly not
> enough for you to dictate to me how i setup my runlevels.
I don't know about xdm, but there ce
> "Dave" == Dave Sherohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> You may have 4 identical runlevels and I may have 4 identical
Dave> runlevels, but debian's policy leaves it up to the admin to
Dave> decide what each runlevel means. If LSB makes proclamations on
Dave> the meaning of various runlev
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 03:06:24PM -0400, Steven Smolinski wrote:
> You have to edit the runlevels now, why would you care about having to
> edit the runlevels after they were made to match the LSB? That, at
> least, buys some compatibility.
...which goes right out the window as soon as you edit
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 07:29:28PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> The reason why the run levels are specified was to handle cases where
> An LSB application may wish to have some kind of daemon which is only
> running when X11/xdm is running.
name 5.
> Now, we could have added yet another leve
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 02:50:08PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:40:05PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >
> > As a specific question: what is the big deal over the uid? I don't want
> > to force it on existing systems, but I don't see how changing it for new
> > installs
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 02:50:08PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:40:05PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >
> > Ditto runlevels: of course we aren't going to mess with existing
> > setups, but I personally would rather the defaults were what was in
> > the LSB: the benefit
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:40:05PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
>
> As a specific question: what is the big deal over the uid? I don't want
> to force it on existing systems, but I don't see how changing it for new
> installs is that big a compromise. Ditto runlevels: of course we aren't
> going
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:40:05PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> As a specific question: what is the big deal over the uid? I don't want
> to force it on existing systems, but I don't see how changing it for new
> installs is that big a compromise.
It effectively makes uid 1 a second root accoun
On 03-Jul-01, 02:37 (CDT), Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> maybe you didn't hear the first time
>
> Who cares!
Maybe you didn't notice: You are not the sole arbiter of what Debian
does or does not choose to support.
> i think debian will support the lsb to the point where it does not
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 10:30:21AM +0200, Holger Rauch wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > i think debian will support the lsb to the point where it does not
> > require compromising our quility and policy.
>
> In what respect does the LSB compromise Debian
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 01:47:06AM -0700, der.hans wrote:
> Do we want to be isolationists and not support ( includes in the making
> thereof ) standards?
Jason made some good efforts, and it sounds like it didn't accomplish much.
> I hope the LSB will require other dists to produce a quality, s
Am 03. Jul, 2001 schwäzte Holger Rauch so:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > i think debian will support the lsb to the point where it does not
> > require compromising our quility and policy.
>
> In what respect does the LSB compromise Debian quality and policy?
Genau.
Hi!
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
> [...]
> i think debian will support the lsb to the point where it does not
> require compromising our quility and policy.
In what respect does the LSB compromise Debian quality and policy?
Regards,
Holger
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 08:40:16PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> use Debian if Debian opts not to support the LSB. Perhaps they'll
> decide to use Mandrake, or Red Hat, or some other distribution
> instead.
maybe you didn't hear the first time
Who cares!
> Since I've only recently switched to
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 12:34:31PM -0600, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
> It's not anti-commercial, but it's not pro-commercial either. It's
> unfortunate that people spend so much time worrying about whether GNU/Linux
> or Free Software is "good for business" in the sense of selling commercial
>
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:08:04AM +0200, Martin F. Krafft wrote:
> > 1) A transparent way to install LSB-compliant rpms in Debian is
> > implemented. Preferably one should be able to install rpms with 'dpkg'
> > command line tool, although an automatic format transform with 'alien'
> > could be pe
> "Sean" == Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> IMNSHO the LSB seriously erred on this, the .deb format makes
>> far more sense as a baseline package format standard then rpm
>> for the simple reason that the .deb format isn't really a
>> format, its just an ar a
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Matti Airas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 11:57:17PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> > dpkg -s
> >
> > you really should rtfm...
>
> Well, thank you for suggesting so kindly. The '-s' switch does exactly
> what I want, but the manual page didn't even slightly hint of it.
>
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:08:04AM +0200, Martin F. Krafft wrote:
> you can for example extract a .deb on a stock slackware
> system, not true of rpm. (unless slackware started including rpm in
> the base since i last looked..)
Slackware comes with RPM
also sprach Ethan Benson (on Sat, 30 Jun 2001 11:57:17PM -0800):
> there is no need for us to follow herd (not hurd) mentality here.
exactly. just because of debian restrictive policy do i think that the
other dists have a lot of work to do. my problem with redhat & co. is
that they are really goi
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 11:22:35AM +0300, Matti Airas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 11:57:17PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> > dpkg -s
> >
> > you really should rtfm...
>
> Well, thank you for suggesting so kindly. The '-s' switch does exactly
> what I want, but the manual page didn't even s
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 11:22:35AM +0300, Matti Airas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 11:57:17PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > dpkg -s
>
> Well, thank you for suggesting so kindly. The '-s' switch does exactly
> what I want, but the manual page didn't even slightly hint of it.
dpkg -s |
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 11:57:17PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> dpkg -s
>
> you really should rtfm...
Well, thank you for suggesting so kindly. The '-s' switch does exactly
what I want, but the manual page didn't even slightly hint of it.
> since when did we give a damn about commercial environ
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 10:39:02AM +0300, Matti Airas wrote:
> tells whether a specific package is installed. rpm -qi
dpkg -l, dpkg -s
> gives info about the package, -ql lists the files and so on.
dpkg -L
> dpkg -l , however, gives a nasty, bastardized formatted
> output, which always seems
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:08:04AM +0200, Martin F. Krafft wrote:
> i must admit that i am not particularly down with RPM, but the time
> that i had to use it i remember as horrible.
> in fact, AFAIK, RPM surely provide dependencies, but DEB has more -
> suggestions, and best of all, classes (i.e
>
> these are not good reasons. proprietary software developers from what
> ive seen make the WORST packages of anyone, even the crap you find in
> /contrib directories. LSB would have been far better off defining
> .tar.gz as the package format, and that proprietary crap go in its own
> directo
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 04:43:32PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> I agree with you 100% -- except you left out a few points which explain how
> they made the decision.
>
> a) there are 3 established dists that use rpm plus numerous small ones
so? *ALL* dists include ar, tar and gzip.
> b)
> IMNSHO the LSB seriously erred on this, the .deb format makes far more
> sense as a baseline package format standard then rpm for the simple
> reason that the .deb format isn't really a format, its just an ar
> archive with gzipped tarballs! those formats are nearly the oldest
> *real* standards
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:08:04AM +0200, Martin F. Krafft wrote:
>
> sure, that would be a possiblity, but rather than merging and going
> with redhat (come on, they are walking micro$oft footsteps), DEB is
> very powerful and can easily exist by itself. a little
> cross-compatibility is needed,
also sprach Matti Airas (on Sat, 30 Jun 2001 11:33:01PM +0300):
> While I agree that a million flies may be wrong, as far as I have
> understood, there are no significant functional differences between
> dpkg and rpm. Package dependencies may be declared explicitly in rpm
> as well, as well as func
43 matches
Mail list logo
