Russ Allbery wrote:
The one exception I can think of is if someone really wants to
customize the [spamassassin daily] job. That can be a little more
tedious to do with timer units. Right now, I think there's a bunch of
logic in the /etc/cron.daily script that someone could in theory
change. But I
Phil Hands wrote:
> I saw that at least one package (I'm afraid I've forgotten which)
> settled on this picture of Grace Hooper:
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Commodore_Grace_M._Hopper%2C_USN_%28covered%29.jpg
> It is Public Domain (having been released by the US Navy
Russ Allbery writes:
> I keep being tempted to go off on a rant about how we have all of
> these modern, sophisticated, much more expressive programming
> languages, and yet still none of them handle ABI versioning as well as
> C does. Normal versioning problems that we just take for granted in C
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
>> Debian has supported booting from md RAID without using an initramfs for
>> a very long time.
> True but misleading. LILO supported it because it hard-coded the block list
> of the kernel and initrd at install time. GRUB
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Since you're talking of software RAID and LVM, that means you need an
> initramfs to boot your system. Thus, your systems will continue to
> boot with the proposed scenario, which supports booting with /usr on a
> separate filesystem if you have an initramfs.
Using softwar
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's
> essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being
> downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we
> don't include a license. If we're legally fine with that, I'm
Axel Beckert wrote:
>Simon McVittie wrote:
>> Would it be enough for the "your old screen binary is
>> /tmp/screen-yhpoe8r/screen" notice to also say "if your /tmp is mounted
>> noexec, you might need to copy it elsewhere to run it"?
> That's my current plan -- with the noexec notice just being
Adeodato wrote:
> On the other hand, the bit about running `debian/rules build` by hand
> seems valid to me.
Indeed, that's what my fingers are used to typing if I just want a
patched package for local use. I wouldn't be surprised if there were
lots of other users who are the same.
The various wr
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This thread has concentrated on fixing packages, but I would
> appreciate a little insight into why someone might set TAPE in their
> environment by default. Surely if you set it by default, you must
> realse that you're asking any such invocation of tar to w
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The manpage of tar does not mention the special handling of a
> environment variable named TAPE. Nor does tar --help.
But, unsurprisingly, the tar manual does (under the --file option).
-M-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, does anybody mind if I remove depmod from the module-init-tools init
>> script?
>So I did it. Since yesterday depmod -A is not run at boot time anymore.
Will the case described in this message (from the postinst for kernel .debs
made by kernel-packag
Karl Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Suppose package P contains files /usr/bin/B1 and /usr/bin/B2. B1
>is the important program, and B2 is not as important. Is it OK
>for the declared package dependencies to not satisfy all the
>run-time shared library dependencies of B2? What if they are
>list
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > >* The Invariant Section is retained, but another Invariant Section
> > > containing a rebuttal is added to the document. This would a) look
> > > silly, and b) be a beginning of Invariant Section bloat, in which a
> > > document could consist of 10% Invariant Sections
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>A more realistic example would be
>
>Answer: Because the document contains an invariant section on the
> author's opinion regarding the dangers of Software Patents in
> the European Union.
>
>Something like that simply is not free. It might be true at the time th
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 11:57:03PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Anyway, this discussion is superfluous too, as the dpkg maintainers have
> already decided to move over to the C, GNU version in the future. (See
> debian-dpkg list archives for details.)
I am pleased to hear this.
-M-
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 11:19:26PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> As it has been pointed out hundreds of times, it is GNU that distributes a
> program under then name 'install-info' which is incompatible with the dpkg
> version. :)
>
> (The version in dpkg has seniority.)
It's not a matter of senior
> I am wondering if we aren't violating the spirit if not the letter of
> LSB by using a non-standard version of install-info.
While of course the LSB says nothing about install-info, the fact that
Debian distributes a program under the name 'install-info' which is
incompatible with the GNU versio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have a question: whydo we have to keep .adb files in the package
> since .ads files are meant to contain the interface? (well, indeed
> except from generics).
I don't know that we 'have to', but one reason to do so is that gnat can
inline subprograms across unit bou
Ian Sharpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is there a Debian-preferred location for .ali files (etc) produced by
>the Gnat Ada compiler? The pattern seems to be:
>
> .a/.so files in /usr/lib
> .ali files in /usr/lib/xxx
> .ads/.adb files in /usr/include/xxx
>
>where xxx is the package that the libra
19 matches
Mail list logo
