Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 13:56 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:42:19 +0200, Josselin Mouette
> wrote:
> >It looks easier to fix the 47 remaining packages, especially given the
> >fix is trivial for most of them.
>
> This "fix" means reducing their robustness. All because ou
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:42:19 +0200, Josselin Mouette
wrote:
>It looks easier to fix the 47 remaining packages, especially given the
>fix is trivial for most of them.
This "fix" means reducing their robustness. All because our core tools
are flawed. That's not the Debian way to solve things.
Gree
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le dimanche 04 juillet 2010 à 16:04 +0200, Magnus Holmgren a écrit :
>> > Yes. A possible solution would be to introduce a new type of dependency.
>> > Iâm not sure the number of impacted packages justifies the amount of
>> > work.
>>
>> Just introduce the new, loo
Le dimanche 04 juillet 2010 à 16:04 +0200, Magnus Holmgren a écrit :
> > Yes. A possible solution would be to introduce a new type of dependency.
> > I’m not sure the number of impacted packages justifies the amount of
> > work.
>
> Just introduce the new, looser type of dependency; all the packag
On tisdagen den 29 juni 2010, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 27 juin 2010 à 14:27 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> > The problem is that we don't properly distinguish between "foo needs
> > bar during installation or foo's installation will fail" and "foo
> > needs bar to be installed or foo wi
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le samedi 26 juin 2010 à 22:30 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:20:46 +0200, Josselin Mouette
>> wrote:
>> >Furthermore, Iâd be interested to know how to fix such a âshortcomingâ
>> >in our software. If both A and B depend on each other, A.
Le dimanche 27 juin 2010 à 14:27 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> The problem is that we don't properly distinguish between "foo needs
> bar during installation or foo's installation will fail" and "foo
> needs bar to be installed or foo will not work". One could express
> this via Recommends, but the
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 10:31:32 +0200, Josselin Mouette
wrote:
>Le samedi 26 juin 2010 à 22:30 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:20:46 +0200, Josselin Mouette
>> wrote:
>> >Furthermore, I’d be interested to know how to fix such a “shortcoming”
>> >in our software. If both A and B
Le samedi 26 juin 2010 à 22:30 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:20:46 +0200, Josselin Mouette
> wrote:
> >Furthermore, I’d be interested to know how to fix such a “shortcoming”
> >in our software. If both A and B depend on each other, A.postinst must
> >be executed before B.pos
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:42:38 -0700, Russ Allbery
wrote:
>The problem that I have with this argument is that it seems to imply the
>situation is improved for that embedded system if some random minority of
>Debian packagers explicitly declare the dependency on bash, while most
>continue not to do s
Marc Haber writes:
> "Bernhard R. Link" wrote:
>> Please, try to be a bit more fair. Having people not need to specify
>> dependencies is really not the solution that "dumps extra error
>> proneness and extra thoughtweight" on the developers.
> Imagine an embedded system that doesn't have bash
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:20:46 +0200, Josselin Mouette
wrote:
>Furthermore, I’d be interested to know how to fix such a “shortcoming”
>in our software. If both A and B depend on each other, A.postinst must
>be executed before B.postinst, and vice versa.
That's only one kind of circular dependency,
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:45:15 +0200, "Bernhard R. Link"
wrote:
>* Marc Haber [100626 14:07]:
>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:27:31 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> >The footnote to Policy 3.5, where this is written out?
>>
>> Ah, so this is the same as the no-circular-dependency rule, dumping
>> extra error pr
* Marc Haber [100626 14:07]:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:27:31 -0700, Steve Langasek
> >The footnote to Policy 3.5, where this is written out?
>
> Ah, so this is the same as the no-circular-dependency rule, dumping
> extra error proneness and extra thoughtweight on all developers
Please, try to be
Le samedi 26 juin 2010 à 14:07 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> >The footnote to Policy 3.5, where this is written out?
>
> Ah, so this is the same as the no-circular-dependency rule, dumping
> extra error proneness and extra thoughtweight on all developers to
> work around shortcomings in our softwa
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:07:40 +0200
Marc Haber wrote:
> Ah, so this is the same as the no-circular-dependency rule, dumping
> extra error proneness and extra thoughtweight on all developers to
> work around shortcomings in our software?
Patches to dpkg are welcome if you have a better (and
reliab
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:27:31 -0700, Steve Langasek
wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:20:33PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:58:58 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow
>> wrote:
>> >I think for that goal it would be good for lintian to add an exception
>> >to the (build-)depends-on-ess
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:20:33PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:58:58 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow
> wrote:
> >I think for that goal it would be good for lintian to add an exception
> >to the (build-)depends-on-essential-package-without-using-version check.
> >That does not mea
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:58:58 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow
wrote:
>I think for that goal it would be good for lintian to add an exception
>to the (build-)depends-on-essential-package-without-using-version check.
>That does not mean that bash should stop being essential in Debian any
>time soon.
I h
Joerg Jaspert writes:
>> Beyond making dash the default /bin/sh, which has already happened, is it
>> (still) a long-time goal to make bash not Essential, or did I dream that?
>> Because if it is, getting there means adding a lot of "Depends: bash" first,
>> and so Lintian should probably add
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:12:09AM +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> I don't get it. Even booting still requires bash
> $ find grub* -executable|xargs checkbashisms #grub-pc 1.98+20100617-1
> script grub-common.preinst is already a bash script; skipping
> script grub-pc.postinst is already a bash
I don't get it. Even booting still requires bash
$ find grub* -executable|xargs checkbashisms #grub-pc 1.98+20100617-1
script grub-common.preinst is already a bash script; skipping
script grub-pc.postinst is already a bash script; skipping
script grub-pc.postrm is already a bash script; skipping
sc
> Beyond making dash the default /bin/sh, which has already happened, is it
> (still) a long-time goal to make bash not Essential, or did I dream that?
> Because if it is, getting there means adding a lot of "Depends: bash" first,
> and so Lintian should probably add an exception to the (build-)
On 12/06/10 21:00, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> Beyond making dash the default /bin/sh, which has already happened, is it
> (still) a long-time goal to make bash not Essential, or did I dream that?
> Because if it is, getting there means adding a lot of "Depends: bash" first,
> and so Lintian should
[Magnus Holmgren]
> Beyond making dash the default /bin/sh, which has already happened, is it
> (still) a long-time goal to make bash not Essential, or did I dream that?
> Because if it is, getting there means adding a lot of "Depends: bash" first,
> and so Lintian should probably add an except
Beyond making dash the default /bin/sh, which has already happened, is it
(still) a long-time goal to make bash not Essential, or did I dream that?
Because if it is, getting there means adding a lot of "Depends: bash" first,
and so Lintian should probably add an exception to the (build-)depends-
26 matches
Mail list logo
