Robert Edmonds:
The relevant text from the policy manual, §9.11: [...]
The Debian Policy Manual never got updated in the wake of the Debian
systemd Hoo-Hah. It remains written from the viewpoint that System 5
init and rc are the defaults, and that upstart is a novelty addendum.
Several
Robert Edmonds:
The relevant text from the policy manual, §9.11: [...]
Ansgar Burchardt:
Was that changed since the default init system was changed? It pretty
much still reads like Policy still assumes that sysvinit is the
default init system. It also still mentions upstart in 9.11.1; wil
* Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080224 09:18]:
> Bas Zoetekouw writes ("Re: QUESTION: Debian Policy: Manual pages"):
> > Why a recommends? In order to satisfy the spirit of policy ("every
> > binary must have a man page") it would need to be a depends,
Bas Zoetekouw writes ("Re: QUESTION: Debian Policy: Manual pages"):
> Why a recommends? In order to satisfy the spirit of policy ("every
> binary must have a man page") it would need to be a depends, imo.
I think the point of policy is to ensure the manpage exists,
Hi,
Answers:
a) Yes, they are *really* distributed in three separate tarballs.
b) The three tarballs are not released in sync.
Conclusion:
1) a.deb & b.deb shall depend on c.deb
2) a.deb & b.deb shall contain lintian overrides.
Thanks for the useful feedback!
[NOTE: If replying, please keep m
On 14/02/2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I thought that tag in lintian already had a note that you should add
> an override if the man pages are shipped in a different package on
> which this package has a dependency. Apparently I was just imagining
> things.
ISTR it's the case for icons in desktop/me
Hi Josselin!
You wrote:
> Le vendredi 15 février 2008 à 03:04 +1100, Harshula a écrit :
> > 1) a.tar.gz -> a.deb
> > 2) b.tar.gz -> b.deb
> > 3) c.tar.gz -> c.deb
> >
> > c.tar.gz contains only documentation, including man pages for
> > binaries/scripts in a.tar.gz and b.tar.gz.
>
> Then a and
Harshula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since c.deb contains all the man pages, running lintian on a.deb results
> in:
> ---
> W: m17n-db: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/m17n-db
> N:
> N: Each binary in /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /bin, /sb
Le vendredi 15 février 2008 à 03:04 +1100, Harshula a écrit :
> 1) a.tar.gz -> a.deb
> 2) b.tar.gz -> b.deb
> 3) c.tar.gz -> c.deb
>
> c.tar.gz contains only documentation, including man pages for
> binaries/scripts in a.tar.gz and b.tar.gz.
Then a and b should Recommend: c, regardless of how the
Harshula wrote:
> Hi,
>
> re: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s12.1
> ---
> Each program, utility, and function should have an associated manual
> page included in the same package. It is suggested that all
> con
Hi
Firstly, this kind of question would be better suited in the
debian-mentors list.
Harshula wrote:
> Here's the example:
>
> 1) a.tar.gz -> a.deb
> 2) b.tar.gz -> b.deb
> 3) c.tar.gz -> c.deb
>
Are they really distributed in three separate upstream tarballs? If they
are, perhaps it would be
Le 14 févr. 08 à 17:04, Harshula a écrit :
Hi,
re: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s12.1
---
Each program, utility, and function should have an associated manual
page included in the same package. [...]
--
Hi,
re: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s12.1
---
Each program, utility, and function should have an associated manual
page included in the same package. It is suggested that all
configuration files also have a ma
On Jun 22, Bruce Perens wrote
>
> Debian policy for systems 2.0 and above will be to have _no_editor_
> as part of the base system. If you want an editor, you must install
Ahh... That should put an end to the endless editor threads. I'm all for
it.
Christian
PS Is the bruce-bunchofnumbers add
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Francesco Tapparo) wrote on 22.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Jun 22, Kai Henningsen wrote
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Hudon) wrote on 21.06.97 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Newbies should *not* be dumped into vi by default. It's just too
> > > user-hostile.
>
From: Francesco Tapparo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Of course ae will be used in the boot disks, but in the default
> installation, joe must be the choiche, IMO.
Debian policy for systems 2.0 and above will be to have _no_editor_
as part of the base system. If you want an editor, you must install
--
Br
On Jun 22, James Troup wrote
> Francesco Tapparo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Joe is much better, IMO, and it's very newbie-friendly.
>
> hades|14:07:32 ~ [507] $ls -l $(type -path joe) $(type -path ae)
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root23968 May 5 01:36 /bin/ae
> -rwxr-xr-x 5 root
On Jun 22, Kai Henningsen wrote
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Hudon) wrote on 21.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Newbies should *not* be dumped into vi by default. It's just too
> > user-hostile.
>
> There's only one text mode editor that's not just as user-hostile, and
> that's ae. That
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Hudon) wrote on 21.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Newbies should *not* be dumped into vi by default. It's just too
> user-hostile.
There's only one text mode editor that's not just as user-hostile, and
that's ae. That one seems to be completely unacceptable as a d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Christian Hudon wrote:
> On Jun 17, Scott Ellis wrote
> > I believe that the plan is to have them managed by update-alternatives,
> > and therefore be symlinks. Less will probably have a higher priority than
> > more, although I don't know w
On Jun 17, Scott Ellis wrote
>
> I believe that the plan is to have them managed by update-alternatives,
> and therefore be symlinks. Less will probably have a higher priority than
> more, although I don't know who gets to win the war over which editor is
> best, although I suspect a vi varient o
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, David Frey wrote:
> My comments on Christian's proposal (which is very good, thank you christian):
>
> >TOPIC 1: policy for user and group ids (uids, gids)
>
> Wouldn't it be better to start the user uid range with 100 as most other
> Unices do?
Sorry, but I don't get your
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, David Frey wrote:
> > The files /usr/bin/{editor,pager} will be managed through alternatives.
> > Since alternatives can be changed by the sysadmin only, we allow the user
> > to define EDITOR and PAGER to override this.
> >
> > That's why we need "sensible-{editor,pager}".
> > David Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >>TOPIC 4: editor/pager policy
> > > What is the benefit of /usr/bin/sensible-{editor,pager}?
> > > Why don't we just default to EDITOR=/usr/bin/vi and PAGER=/usr/bin/more
> > > if both variables are unset? (auch, don't beat me)
> >
> > That might
On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Mark Baker wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> David Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>TOPIC 4: editor/pager policy
> > What is the benefit of /usr/bin/sensible-{editor,pager}?
> > Why don't we just default to EDITOR=/usr/bin/vi and PAGER=/usr/bin/more
>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>TOPIC 4: editor/pager policy
> What is the benefit of /usr/bin/sensible-{editor,pager}?
> Why don't we just default to EDITOR=/usr/bin/vi and PAGER=/usr/bin/more
> if both variables are unset? (auch, don't beat me)
My comments on Christian's proposal (which is very good, thank you christian):
>TOPIC 1: policy for user and group ids (uids, gids)
Wouldn't it be better to start the user uid range with 100 as most other
Unices do?
>TOPIC 4: editor/pager policy
What is the benefit of /usr/bin/sensible-{editor,p
Hi folks!
I've set up a new web page for all Debian Policy related info. The URL is
http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/debian-policy/
The page contains the newest Policy Manual (2.1.3.3) in different formats,
as well as the Filesystem Structure (FSSTND), and the virtual pa
28 matches
Mail list logo
