Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2016-05-25 10:37:08)
> Quoting Ansgar Burchardt (2016-05-25 10:14:02)
>> Also all "Priority: important" packages installed by the default
>> installation should be marked as manually installed as far as I
>> remember.
>
> Is it documented somewhere which di-installed pac
Quoting Ansgar Burchardt (2016-05-25 10:14:02)
> Also all "Priority: important" packages installed by the default
> installation should be marked as manually installed as far as I
> remember.
Is it documented somewhere which di-installed packages should be marked
as manually installed and which
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016, at 13:03, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 11:43 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 24, 2016, at 10:01, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 24 May 2016 at 09:08:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschu
On Tue, May 24, 2016, at 13:03, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 11:43 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016, at 10:01, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24 May 2016 at 09:08:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> > > wrote:
> > > > Whatever we do, we
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 11:43 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016, at 10:01, Simon McVittie wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 24 May 2016 at 09:08:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Whatever we do, we absolutely must bring up a fully configured
> > > loop
Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Bug#824884: netbase: should not recommend
ifupdown"):
> On Tue, 24 May 2016 at 09:08:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Whatever we do, we absolutely must bring up a fully configured loopback
> > interface by default.
>
> H
On Tue, May 24, 2016, at 10:01, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2016 at 09:08:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Whatever we do, we absolutely must bring up a fully configured loopback
> > interface by default.
>
> Happily, our default init system already does that.
We need t
On Tue, 24 May 2016 at 09:08:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Whatever we do, we absolutely must bring up a fully configured loopback
> interface by default.
Happily, our default init system already does that.
systemd's authors see the lo device as being less like networking and
mor
On Mon, May 23, 2016, at 22:54, Simon Richter wrote:
> On 21.05.2016 21:06, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > Personally I don't see a compelling reason why netbase should pull in a
> > specific network configuration system.
> > So +1 for dropping the Recommends.
>
> It should probably pull in at least one
Hi,
On 21.05.2016 21:06, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Personally I don't see a compelling reason why netbase should pull in a
> specific network configuration system.
> So +1 for dropping the Recommends.
It should probably pull in at least one -- ideally listing a sensible
default for Desktop installa
Guus Sliepen writes:
> Hm, I did not expect that, but according to codesearch.debian.net you
> are right. I'm actually stunned by the amount of programs that do
> something like:
> struct protoent *pe = getprotobyname("TCP");
> int s = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, pe->p_proto);
> ...whe
On May 22, "Iain R. Learmonth" wrote:
> What is the upstream source for the /etc/services file? Do we just
I am...
> maintain that in Debian or are updates incorporated from IANA and
> unofficial port numbers?
I do not use the official IANA list because it is huge and full of
entries of questio
Hi,
On 22/05/16 10:00, Niko Tyni wrote:
> Well, getservbyname(3) is used by 945 packages according to
> codesearch.debian.net, and getprotobyname(3) by 551 packages.
> Those use /etc/services and /etc/protocols by default AFAIK.
> Doesn't seem that seldom to me?
I'm probably doing it wrong, but I
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:38:27AM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> Hm, I did not expect that, but according to codesearch.debian.net you
> are right. I'm actually stunned by the amount of programs that do
> something like:
>
> struct protoent *pe = getprotobyname("TCP");
> int s = socket(AF_
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 12:00:37PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > About the description of the netbase package though: it currently only
> > contains for text files in /etc that are seldomly used. For fun I just
> > purged netbase, and it doesn't really break anything. I wouldn't call it
> > "necessa
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:01:05PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> About the description of the netbase package though: it currently only
> contains for text files in /etc that are seldomly used. For fun I just
> purged netbase, and it doesn't really break anything. I wouldn't call it
> "necessary in
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 09:08:29PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Does anybody see a reason to NOT remove the recommends?
I don't see a reason either.
About the description of the netbase package though: it currently only
contains for text files in /etc that are seldomly used. For fun I just
purge
Am 20.05.2016 um 21:08 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
> Does anybody see a reason to NOT remove the recommends?
I seems to have been a Depends in the past and was demoted to Recommends
quite a while ago. Why it was added in the first place I can't seem to
find in the debian changelog.
Personally I don't se
Does anybody see a reason to NOT remove the recommends?
On May 20, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> netbase should not recommend ifupdown. Currently any package
> depending on netbase will install ifupdown and a dhcp client if
> recommends are installed, see [1].
>
> As ifupdown is currently Priority
19 matches
Mail list logo
