Ian Murdock writes:
ther have to have separate Incoming directories for all
>supported architectures, or we'll have to have a naming scheme for all
>Incoming binary packages (prepending a dash and the architecture name,
>for example) that can be easily resolved before the packages are moved.
Cons
Bill Mitchell writes:
>The most reasonable approach seems to me (of course) to be the one
>which I've been arguing -- a naming standard very close to current
>practice, minimizing package renaming, and minimizing mangling of
>upstream naming and versioning.
Let me throw another idea in the pot.
David Engel writes:
>> >> 3. /etc/rc[0-6].d will move to /etc/rc.d/rc[0-6].d to match the
>> >> practice on other Linux systems. Symbolic links will provide
>> >> compatibility with the old locations.
>> > Is this really necessary ? Real SysV's do things the way we have
>> > done.
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Robert Leslie writes:
> Robert> I don't know about other mirrors, but AFAICT tsx-11.mit.edu
> Robert> doesn't even carry the 0.93R6 release any more. It only offers
> Robert> debian-1.0.
>
>It's getting jucier by the minute:
>
>This domain has a local wuarchive m
4 matches
Mail list logo
