"\"Iñaki" Baz Castillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Op, sorry, I meant that "lighttpd DOESN'T use LSB specs but Debian
> specs".
>
> You say that "it's not a sensible behaviour to fail when asked to start
> a service that is already running" but this is the default behaviour of
> Debian init
2008/7/4 Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> In the above case which is the "bad" init script?:
>
> lighttpd obviously. It's not a sensible behaviour to fail when asked to
> start a service that is already running.
>
>> - lighttpd uses LSB specs.
>
> This seems to contradict what you told us b
Actually, should udev be killed at all when switching to single user
mode?
Do we have a definition of how single user mode should work?
Obviously I am not looking forward to make the udev init script even
more complex.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * I like to have an exact copy of the downloaded source tarball with
>the same md5 checksum, gpg detached signature, etc. Using the
>rules/tarball.mk from cdbs provides a very convenient way of
>handling this.
Have you considered the debi
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> So, is using tarball in tarball considered "bad" these days? Is it
> viewed as an approach that once had its time but is now discouraged,
> or is it just a matter of personal preference and creating a
> README.source that tells the user what to do file makes it all okay?
I
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> Tarballs using the wrong top-level directory name is nothing that can't be
> worked around.
dpkg-source does not care what directory (if any) a .orig.tar.gz extracts
into. There's nothing "wrong" about an upstream tarball extracting into
"" instead of "-".
--
see shy jo
On lördagen den 5 juli 2008, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> * I like to have an exact copy of the downloaded source tarball with
>the same md5 checksum, gpg detached signature, etc. Using the
>rules/tarball.mk from cdbs provides a very convenient way of
>handling this.
The .orig.tar.gz is s
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the Debian menu system replaces the .menu format by the .desktop
> format for its files, I volunteer to work hard on helping the
> transition.
>
> Using natively the .desktop format would suppress the need for
> maintaining two files in parallel in m
* Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080705 18:22]:
> * I like to have an exact copy of the downloaded source tarball with
>the same md5 checksum, gpg detached signature, etc. Using the
>rules/tarball.mk from cdbs provides a very convenient way of
>handling this.
I consider this the
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: debgtd
Version : 0.200807151742
Upstream Author : Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://jmtd.net/computing/software/debgtd/
* License : GPL-2
Programming Lang: pyt
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 11:58:17AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, 05 Jul 2008, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 10:58:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >> > THanks, I could come up with a transition plan myself if needed. But
>
On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 12:21 -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> So, is using tarball in tarball considered "bad" these days?
I see no reason to consider this "bad".
> Is it
> viewed as an approach that once had its time but is now discouraged,
> or
I don't use it, but don't let that discourage you
In light of the upcoming change to 3.0 (quilt) source package format
and Raphael Hertzog's guidelines suggesting that we not use tarball in
tarball packages, I'm re-evaluating my habit of using this pattern.
There are many reasons that I prefer to use tarball in tarball, but
there are two that I
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Why are all of you talking as though sending SIGTERM were not the
> standard way to tell a process to save its state and exit gracefully?
Thats not the point. It is a quesion of sequence. When you get the killall5
sigterm, then everybody else also gets i
* Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080705 02:37]:
>
> [Marvin Renich]
> > If the package does need to save state, don't enable the "quick halt"
> > option! The maintainer definitely ought to know this.
>
> Why are all of you talking as though sending SIGTERM were not the
> standard way to te
Le Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 10:54:30AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann a écrit :
> it lacks people doing the work
Hi all
If the Debian menu system replaces the .menu format by the .desktop
format for its files, I volunteer to work hard on helping the
transition.
Using natively the .desktop format would suppr
* Daniel Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080705 09:05]:
> xdg .desktop-based menus are not covered by policy.
I think this is an important point to acknowledge by all people wanting
to see more .desktop files: There is no policy how to use the
fields in them. Currently most people just copy the fil
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonathan Roudiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: marionnet
Version : 0.60.0
Upstream Author : Jean-Vincent Loddo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Luca Saiu <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
* URL : http
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 10:58:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> > THanks, I could come up with a transition plan myself if needed. But
>> > compare your suggestions with: "someone goes over all init scripts
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 10:58:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > THanks, I could come up with a transition plan myself if needed. But
> > compare your suggestions with: "someone goes over all init scripts, file
> > bugs and in lenny+1 we're done".
>
> T
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:54:30 +0200
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 4:15 PM, William Pitcock
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Honestly, policy really needs to be updated to use the XDG
> >> standards menu spec, and every WM at this po
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:54:30 +0200
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Another solution would be to make debian-menu build .desktop
> >> entries for the menu in the main menu namespace and not the
> >> 'Debian' namespace; this seems like the easiest solution.
>
> > +1
>
> I don'
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 10:58:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> THanks, I could come up with a transition plan myself if needed. But
> compare your suggestions with: "someone goes over all init scripts, file
> bugs and in lenny+1 we're done".
That'll cause tremendous pain for backporters. I'm o
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 01:46 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> You mean the specification that is followed mostly in the breech by actual
> implementations and to which KDE at least has a whole ton of extensions?
>
I think the XDG standard is actually *based* on the Desktop Entry spec
from KDE1/KD
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You mean the specification that is followed mostly in the breech by
> actual implementations and to which KDE at least has a whole ton of
> extensions?
Or in the breach, even. Although in the breech does sum up my opinion on
parts of it. :)
Some examp
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> I'm reluctant to change the default behaviour of start-stop-daemon at this
> >> point. What do other people think of making --oknodo the default behaviour
> >> and adding a new option to force the current default behaviour (ex
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 4:15 PM, William Pitcock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Honestly, policy really needs to be updated to use the XDG standards
>> menu spec, and every WM at this point really should be using them for
>> their menus.
>>
>> I think the debian-menu system sh
William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Honestly, policy really needs to be updated to use the XDG standards
> menu spec, and every WM at this point really should be using them for
> their menus.
You mean the specification that is followed mostly in the breech by actual
implementations and
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> I found this when trying to solve #369386. There seems to be a problem
> when trying to go from two conflicting packages to a dummy package and
> the prefered one:
[...]
I seem to have wrongly diagnosed the problem. The actual seems to have
b
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 02:42:27AM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> For discussion:
>
> Gnome, KDE, and XFCE are the the top three desktops used in debian and
> cover most users of desktops in debian.
>
> They all use xdg .desktop-based menus as their main menu.
You already opened a bug against
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 01:36:43AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Marvin Renich]
> > If the package does need to save state, don't enable the "quick halt"
> > option! The maintainer definitely ought to know this.
> Why are all of you talking as though sending SIGTERM were not the
> standard wa
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 4:15 PM, William Pitcock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Honestly, policy really needs to be updated to use the XDG standards
> menu spec, and every WM at this point really should be using them for
> their menus.
>
> I think the debian-menu system should be seen as legacy, sinc
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 02:42 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> For discussion:
>
> Gnome, KDE, and XFCE are the the top three desktops used in debian and
> cover most users of desktops in debian.
>
> They all use xdg .desktop-based menus as their main menu.
>
> xdg .desktop-based menus are no
For discussion:
Gnome, KDE, and XFCE are the the top three desktops used in debian and
cover most users of desktops in debian.
They all use xdg .desktop-based menus as their main menu.
xdg .desktop-based menus are not covered by policy.
This means some maintainers refuse to use them (see bug #4
34 matches
Mail list logo
