On Sat September 16 2006 16:56, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Steve Langasek]
>
> > However, that's not the same thing as saying it's ok for sysvinit
> > to *make* /var/run a tmpfs on the admin's behalf. I think it's
> > pretty clear that this violates the letter of the FHS, and such a
> > change
Package: wnpp
Owner: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: btsco
Version : 0.42
Upstream Author : Jonathan Paisley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://bluetooth-alsa.sourceforge.net
* License : GPL/LGPL
Programming Lang: C
D
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 12:56:47AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Steve Langasek]
> > However, that's not the same thing as saying it's ok for sysvinit to
> > *make* /var/run a tmpfs on the admin's behalf. I think it's pretty
> > clear that this violates the letter of the FHS, and such a ch
This one time, at band camp, Petter Reinholdtsen said:
>
> [Steve Langasek]
> > However, that's not the same thing as saying it's ok for sysvinit to
> > *make* /var/run a tmpfs on the admin's behalf. I think it's pretty
> > clear that this violates the letter of the FHS, and such a change
> > nee
"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm one of those people beaten by recent removal of gcc
> documentation. Both myself and people to whom I recommend Debian,
> *need* gcc documentation to be available in the system.
The FSF agree with your position.
http://www.fsf.org/lic
[Steve Langasek]
> However, that's not the same thing as saying it's ok for sysvinit to
> *make* /var/run a tmpfs on the admin's behalf. I think it's pretty
> clear that this violates the letter of the FHS, and such a change
> needs to be considered carefully.
I fail to see how it violates the l
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 09:38:07PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Kurt Roeckx]
> > I'm not really sure what the right thing to do is. Maybe the FHS
> > should be made clear on what you can expect from /var/run.
> I believe it is quite clear that the sysadmin is allowed to use tmpfs
> as /va
On Saturday 16 September 2006 23:07, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I agree that this need to be documented. We work on some notes for
> the sysvinit package, and will include it there.
Sounds to me like this belongs in policy.
pgpTZyxVfGvin.pgp
Description: PGP signature
[Kurt Roeckx]
> The FHS says we can create directories under /var/run that are
> application specific. It also says that all files should be removed
> or truncated. It does not say anything about directories being
> removed.
It does not say they will stay either, though it specifies "Programs
ma
Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm one of those people beaten by recent removal of gcc documentation. Both
> myself and people to whom I recommend Debian, *need* gcc documentation to
> be available in the system.
>
> So I had four options:
> - start a new flamewar on the issue,
> - s
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 12:06:02AM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> I've created gcc-4.1-doc-non-dfsg package, intended for non-free. This
> package builds several binary packages (cpp-4.1-doc, gcc-4.1-doc,
> gfortran-4.1-doc, tree;ang-4.1-doc), that contain all files - man pages,
> info a
[Kurt Roeckx]
> I'm not really sure what the right thing to do is. Maybe the FHS
> should be made clear on what you can expect from /var/run.
I believe it is quite clear that the sysadmin is allowed to use tmpfs
as /var/run/, and that packages which fail to support this has a bug.
To test the im
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 02:21:19PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Kurt Roeckx]
> > Afaik, Ubuntu is already using this. As a result, I've actually got a
> > bug against my package submitted because it didn't handle it. My
> > package now recreates the directory from the init script if it's
Hello.
I'm one of those people beaten by recent removal of gcc documentation. Both
myself and people to whom I recommend Debian, *need* gcc documentation to
be available in the system.
So I had four options:
- start a new flamewar on the issue,
- stop to use Debian (and to recomment it),
- inst
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Khalid El Fathi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: gpar2
Version : 0.3
Upstream Author : John Augustine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/parchive/
* License : GPL
Description : A GUI for v
[Kurt Roeckx]
> Afaik, Ubuntu is already using this. As a result, I've actually got a
> bug against my package submitted because it didn't handle it. My
> package now recreates the directory from the init script if it's
> missing, and I'm not really happy about that solution.
Why not? 'mkdir
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 08:19:24PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > are checked and mounted. (I do not know how they are going to handle
> > the fact that /var/run is needed before /var is mounted, mount --move
> > requires kernel 2.6 afaict.)
> etch requires a 2.6 kernel too.
No, it uses 2.6 by def
Hi Andreas!
You wrote:
> The whole thing is grey territory in FHS, but still I tend to think
> that sysvinit should somehow preserve the (empty) directory structure
> of /var/run through reboots. Either by using some find+tar magic after
> mounting /usr or by keeping /var/run a real directory and
On Sep 16, Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> are checked and mounted. (I do not know how they are going to handle
> the fact that /var/run is needed before /var is mounted, mount --move
> requires kernel 2.6 afaict.)
etch requires a 2.6 kernel too.
> This is nice, but is going to break
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 06:54:05PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Hello,
> It has been pointed out to me in http://bugs.debian.org/387699
> that syvinit is going to move /var/run to a tmpfs to solve a long-standing
> issue, having some place to store state information before partitions
> are chec
Hello,
It has been pointed out to me in http://bugs.debian.org/387699
that syvinit is going to move /var/run to a tmpfs to solve a long-standing
issue, having some place to store state information before partitions
are checked and mounted. (I do not know how they are going to handle
the fact that
also sprach Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.16.1653 +0200]:
> If it's not working, you may have hit a bug in apt. I did just look at
> the code in apt-extracttemplates and it's still there, at least.
Was it there in sarge? Because I am hitting the bug reproducably
upgrading from sarge to si
Steve Langasek wrote:
> A pre-depend is not sufficient to ensure a package's availability when
> apt-preconfigure is run.
This is true, with the exception of dependencies on debconf itself.
dpkg-preconfigure should skip over packages that depend or pre-depend on
a version of debconf newer than the
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, you're right that this code unconditionally uses the user's version of
>> the conffile when moving it, instead of allowing the conffile question to
>> happen.
>>
>> The way to get the conffile prompt for
also sprach Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.16.1235 +0200]:
> Writing your own debconf-escape is one option, another is to exit
> the .config script if debconf-escape is unavailable, deferring
> configuration until the postinst.
Thanks.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 12:17:18PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I have a problem without a clear solution. mdadm uses debconf-escape
> in it's debconf config file and declares a dependency on debconf (>=
> 1.4.72), as that command is only available from that version on.
> The problem is that ap
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 07:41:53PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Aurélien GÉRÔME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> hybserv -- config:6 hybserv/configure-hybrid-notice
This is pending Bug#386401, I have a few other improvements to do on
the package and it will disappear at the next upload.
Cheers,
--
I have a problem without a clear solution. mdadm uses debconf-escape
in it's debconf config file and declares a dependency on debconf (>=
1.4.72), as that command is only available from that version on.
The problem is that apt-preconfigure runs long before APT even
worries about satisfying the ver
> Debian logcheck Team
> logcheck-database -- config:17 logcheck-database/standard-rename-note
removed in svn, will disappear on next upload.
> Debian logcheck Team
> logcheck -- config:14 logcheck/install-note
> logcheck -- config:17 logcheck/changes
first gone, second added retroactively
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Oscar Daniel Diaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: myhdl
Version : 0.5.1
Upstream Author : Jan Decaluwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://myhdl.jandecaluwe.com/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: Python
Descriptio
30 matches
Mail list logo
