On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 07:46:52PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> In the future, though, package management frontends should make it easy to
> view README.Debian at installation time.
I agree, a button called "Debian README" in an X frontend would really be
convenient.
--
2. That which caus
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 06:51:21PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > There is already a standard, reliable way of communicating package
> > > changes to the admin. Amazingly enough, it's called a "changelog". I
> > > usually find them under /usr/share/doc//...
> >
> > We can't really expect the
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 09:14:52PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > People shouldn't have to sift through a bunch of entries of boring and
> > meaningless text (to them, at least :) to get such information...
>
> The same being true of README.Debian.
Everything in README.Debian should be admin-ori
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 11:33:54PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Would you knock it off with the flamebait?
That wasn't flamebait. You may have disagreed with it, it may have
be inaccurate or logically wrong, but it wasn't flamebait.
> I am not suggesting that anyone
> be forced to read any num
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 09:44:23PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 10:30:21PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > It's not that hard to do this for a single package, but it is a completely
> > different matter to do it by hand for every newly-installed package. This
> > is some
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 10:30:21PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> It's not that hard to do this for a single package, but it is a completely
> different matter to do it by hand for every newly-installed package. This
> is something that frontends should simplify.
I have over a thousand packages i
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 09:18:39PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 07:46:52PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Currently, most users probably don't read README.Debian unless they have
> > a good reason, so while it's the correct place to put things like this,
> > they aren't
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 07:46:52PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Currently, most users probably don't read README.Debian unless they have a
> good reason, so while it's the correct place to put things like this, they
> aren't always seen. In the future, though, package management frontends
> shou
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 01:49:34AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> People shouldn't have to sift through a bunch of entries of boring and
> meaningless text (to them, at least :) to get such information...
The same being true of README.Debian. I like to know what changes
on my box, so I can anticipate
On 15-Sep-01, 13:24 (CDT), Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 11:11:20AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
>
> > There is already a standard, reliable way of communicating package
> > changes to the admin. Amazingly enough, it's called a "changelog". I
> > usually find t
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 06:34:38PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 08:24:32PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > We can't really expect the admins to parse through hundreds of
> > changelogs; README.Debian would be a good place, though.
>
> OTOH, apt-listchanges displays the chan
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 06:34:38PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > We can't really expect the admins to parse through hundreds of changelogs;
> > README.Debian would be a good place, though.
>
> OTOH, apt-listchanges displays the changelog upon upgrade, whereas there's
> no automated way to displa
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 08:24:32PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> We can't really expect the admins to parse through hundreds of changelogs;
> README.Debian would be a good place, though.
OTOH, apt-listchanges displays the changelog upon upgrade, whereas there's
no automated way to display changes to
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 11:11:20AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Your scheme works, but at least tell the sys admin what is going on with
> > a debconf note.
> >
> > If you don't want to be bugged change the debconf priority.
>
> I've got it set to "high". Apparently a number of maintainers t
On 15-Sep-01, 09:14 (CDT), Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 13-Sep-01, 18:37 (CDT), Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Your scheme works, but at least tell the sys admin what is going on with a
> debconf note.
>
> If you don't
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 13-Sep-01, 18:37 (CDT), Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Debconf question: do you want a symlink.
>
> Please, no. The fact that debconf provides an easy, consistent way to
> interact with the user does not mean that every possible choice
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 06:37:08PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > ...and the new prerm remove it, and future versions of these scripts
> > > until the end of ti^W^W^Wrelease after next...
> >
> > Actually, if you'd also ship the symlink in the new .deb, dpkg would
> > remove it. Or am I missin
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 10:50:42PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > ...and the new prerm remove it, and future versions of these scripts
> > until the end of ti^W^W^Wrelease after next...
>
> Actually, if you'd also ship the symlink i
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > > Would turning /usr/lib/procmail-lib into a symlink to the appropriate
> > > > location be acceptable?
> > >
> > > This, in particular, won't work, because dpkg won't replace a directory
> > > with
> > > a symlink. You could,
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 10:12:35PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 12:53:49AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > Would turning /usr/lib/procmail-lib into a symlink to the appropriate
> > > location be acceptable?
> >
> > This, in particular, won't work, because dpkg won't repl
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 12:53:49AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Would turning /usr/lib/procmail-lib into a symlink to the appropriate
> > location be acceptable?
>
> This, in particular, won't work, because dpkg won't replace a directory with
> a symlink. You could, however, replace the files
On 14-Sep-01, 10:18 (CDT), "Steve M. Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Err, why not just test for the existence of directory /usr/lib/procmail-lib ?
> Is there an advantage to checking the package version instead?
Because by the time the postinst runs, /usr/lib/procmail-lib is gone.
If it'
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:23:53AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Please, no. The fact that debconf provides an easy, consistent way to
> interact with the user does not mean that every possible choice that
> a package makes needs to ask the user. If I wanted to make all the
> choices, I'll build
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:23:53AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 13-Sep-01, 18:37 (CDT), Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Debconf question: do you want a symlink.
>
> Please, no. The fact that debconf provides an easy, consistent way to
> interact with the user does not mean
On 13-Sep-01, 18:37 (CDT), Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Debconf question: do you want a symlink.
Please, no. The fact that debconf provides an easy, consistent way to
interact with the user does not mean that every possible choice that
a package makes needs to ask the user. If I w
Elie Rosenblum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would happily move it to /usr/share, however I am worried about users
> who are already using the current version. Users can use the provided
> recipes with the procmail INCLUDERC directive, and if I move the files
> it will break all of the user rcfile
On 13-Sep-01, 10:27 (CDT), Elie Rosenblum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 12:53:49AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 10:51:04PM -0400, Elie Rosenblum wrote:
> > > Would turning /usr/lib/procmail-lib into a symlink to the appropriate
> > > location be a
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 12:53:49AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 10:51:04PM -0400, Elie Rosenblum wrote:
> > Would turning /usr/lib/procmail-lib into a symlink to the appropriate
> > location be acceptable? I would really rather avoid breaking every rcfile
> > that currentl
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 10:51:04PM -0400, Elie Rosenblum wrote:
> Question regarding this new bug on procmail-lib that I adopted recently:
>
> [snip copy of my bug report]
>
> I would happily move it to /usr/share, however I am worried about users
> who are already using the current version. Use
Question regarding this new bug on procmail-lib that I adopted recently:
- Forwarded message from Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Subject: Bug#112121: procmail-lib: Recipes belong in /usr/share, not /usr/lib
Reply-To: Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 1
30 matches
Mail list logo
