/Jonatan wrote:
> reasons not to have /S/L in the fs as /Programs...
Two systems linking different versions of /Programs but sharing one fs
with /Programs - probably a bizarre corner case not done by normal
users, but pretty good for testing things against an as-released gobo
(just mount the /S
André Detsch wrote:
> Although signature support is really relevant, most of our binary
> packages still don't have correct signatures.
Why not? Should an archivist sign packages with a 'grandfather'
key when they enter the distribution if they don't have any other
correct signatures?
To me, tha
Dan wrote:
...
>> I agreed that it makes sense to move Unmanaged handling to
>> SyminkProgram. SymlinkProgram can be though as a 'EnableProgram'
>> script, and one step required when enabling a program is copying is
>> Unamanaged content. I'm not sure about Disable/RemoveProgra
...
I agreed that it makes sense to move Unmanaged handling to
SyminkProgram. SymlinkProgram can be though as a 'EnableProgram'
script, and one step required when enabling a program is
copying is
Unamanaged content. I'm not sure about Disable/RemoveProgram
removing
the Unamanaged files from t
Dan wrote:
>> ...
I agreed that it makes sense to move Unmanaged handling to
SyminkProgram. SymlinkProgram can be though as a 'EnableProgram'
script, and one step required when enabling a program is copying is
Unamanaged content. I'm not sure about Disable/RemoveProgram removing
...
I agreed that it makes sense to move Unmanaged handling to
SyminkProgram. SymlinkProgram can be though as a 'EnableProgram'
script, and one step required when enabling a program is copying is
Unamanaged content. I'm not sure about Disable/RemoveProgram
removing
the Unamanaged files from th
Carlo Calica wrote:
...
>> I agreed that it makes sense to move Unmanaged handling to
>> SyminkProgram. SymlinkProgram can be though as a 'EnableProgram'
>> script, and one step required when enabling a program is copying is
>> Unamanaged content. I'm not sure about Disable/RemoveProgram removing
>
On 9/2/06, André Detsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/2/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Talking about signature, my vote goes to make the whole signature
handling at the scripts less strict for the 013 release. E.g., show
only a Log_Terse message when no signature was found or eve
On 9/2/06, Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have come up with some suggestions for Compile, which I need
> feedback if I should implement
> 1) Compile should be configured for "no-sign" by default
> Most users don't want to create packages for redistribution, so
> they probably don't want to si
On 9/2/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have come up with some suggestions for Compile, which I need feedback if
I should implement
1) Compile should be configured for "no-sign" by default
Most users don't want to create packages for redistribution, so they
probably don't want to s
I have come up with some suggestions for Compile, which I need
feedback if I should implement
1) Compile should be configured for "no-sign" by default
Most users don't want to create packages for redistribution, so
they probably don't want to sign their compiled programs. This
suggestion is
I have come up with some suggestions for Compile, which I need feedback if
I should implement
1) Compile should be configured for "no-sign" by default
Most users don't want to create packages for redistribution, so they
probably don't want to sign their compiled programs. This suggestion is to
12 matches
Mail list logo
