Le Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 08:55:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> We should be consistent about terminology. Other than that nit, seconded.
Seconded as well.
This bug reminds me #683495 ("#!/usr/bin/perl" MUST or SHOULD?), which is also
about "must" statements encapsulated in a "should" are
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> That last "if" seems like an odd and not too useful loophole. It would
> be nicer for policy to clearly state that packages *should not* modify
> configuration files owned by other packages directly, whether a tool for
> indirectly modifying is provided or not. If such
Hi,
In 2009, Colin Watson wrote:
> /etc/kernel-img.conf is a weird case. To start with, it's initially
> created by the installer (base-installer) and the update-grub line is
> added by another part of the installer (grub-installer). Obviously the
> installer can't own a configuration file perman
On Thu, Jun 18 2009, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:54:10PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
>> In message #36 [0] and #46 [1], he told me that we should either keep it
>> as an symlink or just edit automatically /etc/kernel-img.conf
>> /etc/kernel-img.conf is edited by grub-installe
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:54:10PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> For example we grub/grub2 maintainers have the problem that some people
> still have /sbin/update-grub in their /etc/kernel-img.conf.
> grub-legacy has a wrapper to warn about this since etch, but we recently
> got a bug report in gru
>There has recently on #debian-devel been a few discussions about wether
>it was allowed to edit other packages configuration files
>(not 'conffiles') in maintainer scripts.
For example by me.
For me it isn't clear.
For example we grub/grub2 maintainers have the problem that some people
still ha
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Sune Vuorela wrote:
so it seems that the "alternative" interpretation, is that "if there
is a interface, then it must be used", but all that is wrapped in a
"should", which is not as binding as a "must".
While this section of policy could probably be c
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> so it seems that the "alternative" interpretation, is that "if there
> is a interface, then it must be used", but all that is wrapped in a
> "should", which is not as binding as a "must".
While this section of policy could probably be clarified, violating
Sune Vuorela writes:
> To be honest, I also have a hard time seeing the issues, but after
> participating two days in a row debating this with different people in
> #debian-devel, I just thought that something must be unclear. I asked a bit,
> and a specific "should" the primary blame.
>
>>
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 20:05:40 Russ Allbery wrote:
> severity 533287 wishlist
> thanks
>
> Sune Vuorela writes:
> > There has recently on #debian-devel been a few discussions about
> > wether it was allowed to edit other packages configuration files (not
> > 'conffiles') in maintainer scripts.
>
severity 533287 wishlist
thanks
Sune Vuorela writes:
> There has recently on #debian-devel been a few discussions about
> wether it was allowed to edit other packages configuration files (not
> 'conffiles') in maintainer scripts.
>
> My interpretation of policy is that you are only allowed to ed
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:01:38AM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.8.1.0
> Severity: important
>
>
> Hi
>
> There has recently on #debian-devel been a few discussions about wether
> it was allowed to edit other packages configuration files
> (not 'conffiles') in
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.1.0
Severity: important
Hi
There has recently on #debian-devel been a few discussions about wether
it was allowed to edit other packages configuration files
(not 'conffiles') in maintainer scripts.
My interpretation of policy is that you are only allowed to
13 matches
Mail list logo
