Hi!
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:06:05PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Faidon Liambotis (2022-12-22):
> > Going forward there are a few options:
> > * Revert the change and depend on debconf again. This is the safest
> > option, as this has been the status quo since 2007.
>
> That would lo
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 + pending
Bug #1026858 [src:cdebconf] Dependency on debconf dropped prematurely
Added tag(s) pending.
--
1026858: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026858
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tags -1 + pending
Cyril Brulebois wrote (Thu, 22 Dec 2022 23:06:05 +0100):
> Faidon Liambotis (2022-12-22):
> > Going forward there are a few options:
> > * Revert the change and depend on debconf again. This is the safest
> > option, as this has been the status quo since 2007.
>
Thanks Faidon for your analysis and Cyril for forwarding this bug report
to me.
On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 23:06:05 +0100 Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Faidon Liambotis (2022-12-22):
> Going forward there are a few options:
> * Revert the change and depend on debconf again. This is the safest
> optio
Hi Faidon,
and many thanks for the detailed analysis.
Faidon Liambotis (2022-12-22):
> Going forward there are a few options:
> * Revert the change and depend on debconf again. This is the safest
> option, as this has been the status quo since 2007.
That would look good to me.
I'll admit
Source: cdebconf
Version: 0.265
Severity: critical
cdebconf 0.265 dropped the "debconf" dependency, that Joey Hess
"temporarily" added in 2007 with cdebconf 0.123[1]. This was added to
"avoid anyone breaking their systems by removing debconf, which
dependencies now allow".
Unfortunately, that rem
6 matches
Mail list logo
