Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:05:29AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>
> > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-send
> > /command/supervise
>
> DJB bug.
The correct answer:
Difference of opinion.
> (And a symlink doesn't make the software FHS-compliant.)
In the case of qmail-send[
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:05:29AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> > I do agree that if everyone but Debian expects foo to be called as
> > foo.pl, there is a bug in Debian.
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-send
> /command/supervise
> These are what are expected when you use qmai
John H. Robinson, IV (29/09/2009):
> These are what are expected when you use qmail and daemontools the
> DJB way.
>
> http://cr.yp.to/unix.html
>
> We solve the first one with /var/qmail/bin being a symlink to
> /usr/sbin. We don't solve the latter one at all.
>
> Debian bug, or DJB bug?
T
On Tue, Sep 29 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 29 septembre 2009 à 11:43 +0200, Mike Hommey a écrit :
>> Improving quality only for the sake of it is not necessarily a good
>> idea. I do agree that if everyone but Debian expects foo to be called
>> as foo.pl, there is a bug in Debian.
>
On Tue, Sep 29 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> Improving quality may be strictly unnecessary, and may be not directly
>> productive, but that doesn't mean there's no good reason to expect it.
>
> Improving quality only for the sake of it is not necessarily a good
> idea.
!!!
If we
On Tue, Sep 29 2009, George Danchev wrote:
> I've also read people claiming that preserving extensions could
> actually help evolving and migrations in the future and it is as
> simple as app.lang1 being rewritten as app.lang2, both stay on board
> as needed or for a reasonable amount of time, the
Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> I do agree that if everyone but Debian expects foo to be called as
> foo.pl, there is a bug in Debian.
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-send
/command/supervise
These are what are expected when you use qmail and daemontools the DJB
way.
http://cr.yp.to/unix.html
We solve the first
On 29.09.2009 08:21, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On the other hand, Section 10.4 says only "the script name should not
include an extension". So you can leave the extension for
What is the intention of this rule anyway?
Thank you and best regards
Andreas
--
Andreas Tscharner
Quoting "Josselin Mouette" :
Le mardi 29 septembre 2009 à 11:43 +0200, Mike Hommey a écrit :
Improving quality only for the sake of it is not necessarily a good
idea. I do agree that if everyone but Debian expects foo to be called
as foo.pl, there is a bug in Debian.
Which is why lintian warn
Le mardi 29 septembre 2009 à 11:43 +0200, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> Improving quality only for the sake of it is not necessarily a good
> idea. I do agree that if everyone but Debian expects foo to be called
> as foo.pl, there is a bug in Debian.
Which is why lintian warnings are left at the apprec
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 19:30 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
"Steve M. Robbins" writes:
I agree with Charles: this is unncessary, unproductive busy-work.
The same characterisation could be given to other changes that raise the
quality of software in Debian (e.g. ensuring that
Mike Hommey writes:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 07:30:44PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > "Steve M. Robbins" writes:
> >
> > > I agree with Charles: this is unncessary, unproductive busy-work.
> >
> > The same characterisation could be given to other changes that raise
> > the quality of software
* Mike Hommey [090929 11:43]:
> > Improving quality may be strictly unnecessary, and may be not directly
> > productive, but that doesn't mean there's no good reason to expect it.
>
> Improving quality only for the sake of it is not necessarily a good
> idea. I do agree that if everyone but Debian
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 19:30 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> "Steve M. Robbins" writes:
>
> > I agree with Charles: this is unncessary, unproductive busy-work.
>
> The same characterisation could be given to other changes that raise the
> quality of software in Debian (e.g. ensuring that commands are
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 07:30:44PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> "Steve M. Robbins" writes:
>
> > I agree with Charles: this is unncessary, unproductive busy-work.
>
> The same characterisation could be given to other changes that raise the
> quality of software in Debian (e.g. ensuring that comman
"Steve M. Robbins" writes:
> I agree with Charles: this is unncessary, unproductive busy-work.
The same characterisation could be given to other changes that raise the
quality of software in Debian (e.g. ensuring that commands are
accompanied by man pages, or that the package synopsis should not
16 matches
Mail list logo
