Bug#75505: base: mod(utils?)conf should not overwrite /etc/modules.conf

2000-10-24 Thread KoV
Package: base Version: 20001024 Severity: normal I think modules.conf should not be overwritten on an upgrade of it's utils I always lost every configuration I have done for my soundcard and my isdn modules whenever I upgrade to new versions of modutils (modconf?) shouldn't it

Bug#75505: base: mod(utils?)conf should not overwrite /etc/m

2000-10-24 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
On 24-Oct-2000 KoV wrote: > Package: base > Version: 20001024 > Severity: normal > > I think modules.conf should not be overwritten on an upgrade of it's utils > I always lost every configuration I have done for my soundcard and my isdn > modules whenever I upgrade t

Bug#75505: marked as done (base: mod(utils?)conf should not overwrite /etc/modules.conf)

2000-10-24 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
ate: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:32:57 -0200 (BRST) From: Gustavo Noronha Silva (KoV) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: base: mod(utils?)conf should not overwrite /etc/modules.conf To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bcc: X-Mailer: bug 3.3.6 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: base Version: 20001024 Severity: normal

Re: busybox in main

2000-10-24 Thread Joey Hess
I would respond to this point by point but it probably suffices to say that we have discussed with James how the debian-installer packages can fit into the archive, and once the new package pool stuff moves into place James is pretty sure it will be easy to do and has committed to doing it. The b

Re: busybox in main

2000-10-24 Thread Roland Bauerschmidt
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 10:35:37PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > The binary packages (installer modules) will not be going into > the main/binary-foo directories, and will not be in the Packages files or > anything, so we are going to feel free to ignore policy in them, much as > we would feel free to

Re: busybox in main

2000-10-24 Thread Anthony Towns
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 10:35:37PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > I would respond to this point by point but it probably suffices to say > that we have discussed with James how the debian-installer packages can > fit into the archive, and once the new package pool stuff moves into > place James is pret

Re: busybox in main

2000-10-24 Thread Glenn McGrath
Roland Bauerschmidt wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 10:35:37PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > > The binary packages (installer modules) will not be going into > > the main/binary-foo directories, and will not be in the Packages files or > > anything, so we are going to feel free to ignore policy in

Re: busybox in main

2000-10-24 Thread Erik Andersen
On Mon Oct 23, 2000 at 10:35:37PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > > And sometimes I think that would have been easier. Sheesh. Indeed. I'm glad to see some progress finally happening though... -Erik -- Erik B. Andersen email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --This message was written using 73% post-consumer

Re: busybox in main

2000-10-24 Thread Joey Hess
Glenn McGrath wrote: > My personal opinion is that Joey is trying to make a compromise by > having a seperate area for installer packages, but as far as i know the > installer team has no idea whatsoever if or when there will be a > seperate area to put installer specific modules. Allright, let m

Re: busybox in main

2000-10-24 Thread Glenn McGrath
Joey Hess wrote: > > Glenn McGrath wrote: > > My personal opinion is that Joey is trying to make a compromise by > > having a seperate area for installer packages, but as far as i know the > > installer team has no idea whatsoever if or when there will be a > > seperate area to put installer spec

Re: busybox in main

2000-10-24 Thread Adam Di Carlo
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 01:59:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > My understanding is that the new d-i archive will work essentially > as follows: > > dists/ stable/ main/ > binary-i386/ > various .debs > disks-i386/ > v