* Tore Anderson
| * Tollef Fog Heen
|
| > No. If you have exim4 installed and install mailman, it's a
| > reasonable expectation that you want to use those two together.
|
| But you cannot know if I have changed, added, or removed files under
| conf.d/ in such a way which would make your
* Marc Haber
> If people change the configuration, they will have to bear with
> breakage this has caused.
If the users cannot safely change Exim's configuration (save using the
Debconf scripts), it cannot be considered "configuration" by any Debian
standard I have ever seen. And if so, /e
* Tollef Fog Heen
> No. If you have exim4 installed and install mailman, it's a
> reasonable expectation that you want to use those two together.
But you cannot know if I have changed, added, or removed files under
conf.d/ in such a way which would make your drop-in routers and
transports
Quoting Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> No, it's not a good idea. Let's keep the change in mind for etch.
That, I fully agree with...:)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:06:46 -0600, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>At least make enabling the change a Debconf
>question.
Impossible with current policy since maintainer scripts are forbidden
to mess with dpkg-conffiles.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No co
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't know how these translation things are handled technically. But
>> since the intended meaning didn't change at all, I don't see why it is
>> better to have a "bad" english version and 40 equally "bad" translated
>> versions, over having a bett
> I don't know how these translation things are handled technically. But
> since the intended meaning didn't change at all, I don't see why it is
> better to have a "bad" english version and 40 equally "bad" translated
> versions, over having a better english version, 10 better translated
> version
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050220 15:25]:
> Marc writes:
> > I would consider it a feature to have mailman work immediately after
> > installation on a default system, and the exim4 configuration scheme has
> > explicitly invented with that possibility in mind.
> I would consider it an obn
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On 18 Feb 2005 17:54:42 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>Still, one piece of useful advice has come from the thread: that the
>>installation comment should tell the user what to do, rather than what
>>not to do.
>
> Fixing this is
* Tore Anderson
| * Tollef Fog Heen
|
| > It's also a nice way for other packages to update exim's configuration
| > -- I'm considering shipping files for mailman, for instance. It would
| > be nice if SA did the same and so on.
|
| But you'd do it so that the routers/transports you add a
Marc writes:
> I would consider it a feature to have mailman work immediately after
> installation on a default system, and the exim4 configuration scheme has
> explicitly invented with that possibility in mind.
I would consider it an obnoxious bug for the installation of a package to
alter my ema
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:07:48 +0100, Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>* Tollef Fog Heen
> > It's also a nice way for other packages to update exim's configuration
> > -- I'm considering shipping files for mailman, for instance. It would
> > be nice if SA did the same and so on.
>
> I would
* Tollef Fog Heen
> It's also a nice way for other packages to update exim's configuration
> -- I'm considering shipping files for mailman, for instance. It would
> be nice if SA did the same and so on.
But you'd do it so that the routers/transports you add are disabled by
default, right?
Hello
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:42:56PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 21:37 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:15:16PM -0600, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (...)
> > > And yes, it does belong there. It could easily add the something
* Henning Makholm
| Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|
| > The point is that I want to massage some parts of the configuration
| > and not others. I want the others to continue to get updated by the
| > normal package installation process.
|
| So is the whole thing essentially
> And yes, it does belong there. It could easily add the something like:
Sure. Changing an important screen with 36 complete translations just
now is an easy thing to do.
People who argue for this "easy change" are just volunteering to
handle translation updates and bring them back to the state
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 05:14:09 +, Henning Makholm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So is the whole thing essentially a workaround for dpkg's current
>lack of good conffile update management,
basically, yes, but I prefer to say that it is an approach that
enables Debian to make use of the excellent dp
On 18 Feb 2005 19:27:27 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>So the many-small-files is perfect for a site like mine. Many changes
>aren't even changes that get noticed by dpkg, because they involve
>making new files to specify new router rules, for example. They just
>get autom
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:25:47 -0500, William Ballard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is the multiple-file configuration logically equivalent to the
>single-file configuration? If you #include'd all the tiny subfiles,
>would the resulting config be identical to the single-file config?
The single file
On 18 Feb 2005 17:54:42 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Still, one piece of useful advice has come from the thread: that the
>installation comment should tell the user what to do, rather than what
>not to do.
Fixing this is unfortunately a non-option for sarge.
|[11/[EMAIL
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The point is that I want to massage some parts of the configuration
> > and not others. I want the others to continue to get updated by the
> > normal package installation process.
>
> So is the
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The point is that I want to massage some parts of the configuration
> and not others. I want the others to continue to get updated by the
> normal package installation process.
So is the whole thing essentially a workaround for dpkg's current
la
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please spare me your moralizing when you don't even read my post very
> closely and I was already in favor of the current way Debian handles it.
I wasn't moralizing; I'm sorry if I misunderstood your note. Many
people here have failed to understand
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 07:27:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Good lord, what are we arguing about then :-)
> > Do people who edit their exim config (I never do on my desktop)
> > really have a hard time grasping #include files?
>
> You'v
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> The point is that I want to massage some parts of the configuration
> and not others. I want the others to continue to get updated by the
> normal package installation process.
>
> If I use the one-big-file method, I can't really do this.
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Good lord, what are we arguing about then :-)
> Do people who edit their exim config (I never do on my desktop)
> really have a hard time grasping #include files?
You've missed the point of the many-small-files config. As a happy
user, let me explain
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:36:54PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> that is irrelevant to the user perspective, IMHO). They produce the
> same initial configuration in any case. The only difference from a user
Good lord, what are we arguing about then :-)
Do people who edit their exim config (I neve
This one time, at band camp, William Ballard said:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 03:02:00AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Furthermore, how does a thing being "standard" help the user in his
> > choice? The user only thinks of his own needs, thus a correct
> > wording would be "pick A if you don't
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 03:02:00AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Furthermore, how does a thing being "standard" help the user in his
> choice? The user only thinks of his own needs, thus a correct wording
> would be "pick A if you don't care". However the current wording is even
> better; the qu
Le vendredi 18 février 2005 à 19:29 -0600, Steve Greenland a écrit :
> > And the fact exim4 diverges from upstream has *absolutely nothing* to do
> > in a debconf note. Debconf is here to promt users, not to document
> > changes.
>
> But how would it hurt to say that choice A is more standard?
Mo
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And the fact exim4 diverges from upstream has *absolutely nothing* to do
> > in a debconf note. Debconf is here to promt users, not to document
> > changes.
>
> But how would it hurt to say that choice A is more standard?
What is "more standard"?
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jesus H. Christ. Read the original post to this thread. It was a
> complaint about how the upstream docs were not consistent with the
> debian config.
Huh? The original post AFAICT of this thread consisted of Marc Haber
complaining that it was inappr
On 18-Feb-05, 17:45 (CST), Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Such a question will never help them. Why the hell would a newbie care
> of a package diverging from upstream (if he understands what an upstream
> is)?
Jesus H. Christ. Read the original post to this thread. It was a
compla
Le vendredi 18 février 2005 à 14:15 -0600, Steve Greenland a écrit :
> On 18-Feb-05, 09:06 (CST), Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Le vendredi 18 f??vrier 2005 ?? 08:37 -0600, Steve Greenland a ??crit :
> > > No where in the Debconf note does it say which is "the upstream way".
> >
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 20:08 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:16:24 -0500, Greg Folkert
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Except I'd rather see --keepcomments as
> >default and changed to --removecomments. My only gripe, pretty minimal.
>
> And fixed soon. #295735.
Wow, I didn't eve
On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 06:54 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:01:45 +1100, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If something like this is different, then not only should Debian
> >supplied documentation reflect the change, but a list of differences
> >should appear in README.Debi
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 14:24 -0800, Blunt Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:31:20 +, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Scripsit Blunt Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > As a general note, I find it annoying, frustrating, and confusing
> > > whenever ANY debian package has
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:15:16PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> And J. Hassler asked:
> > Does it tell you which is the upstream way? Most new users won't know.
>
> At which point Tollef quoted the debconf question, and the answer is
> "no, it doesn't."
>
> And yes, it does belong there.
I t
* Steve Greenland:
> And yes, it does belong there. It could easily add the something like:
>
>The single monolithic file is the normal upstream configuration,
>while the other choice is a Debian innovation that works better with
>large installations or ISPs needing to support many vir
On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 21:37 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:15:16PM -0600, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> (...)
> > And yes, it does belong there. It could easily add the something like:
> >
> >The single monolithic file is the normal upstream configurat
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:15:16PM -0600, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
(...)
> And yes, it does belong there. It could easily add the something like:
>
>The single monolithic file is the normal upstream configuration,
>while the other choice is a Debian innovation that works
On 18-Feb-05, 09:06 (CST), Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le vendredi 18 f??vrier 2005 ?? 08:37 -0600, Steve Greenland a ??crit :
> > No where in the Debconf note does it say which is "the upstream way".
>
> This has nothing to do in a debconf note.
Sigh. Did you read the thread?
Le vendredi 18 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 08:37 -0600, Steve Greenland a Ãcrit :
> No where in the Debconf note does it say which is "the upstream way".
This has nothing to do in a debconf note.
> And does it default to "one big file"?
Yes.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :
On 17-Feb-05, 15:07 (CST), Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * John Hasler
> | Does it tell you which is the upstream way? Most new users won't know.
>
> The Debian exim4 packages can either use a single monolithic file
> (/etc/exim4/exim4.conf.template) or about 40 small files in
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I had a similar experience when I reported bugs in Unstable on the list
> and was roundly flamed for not reading bug reports.
reportbug is pretty helpfull here, however some packages do have a very
large list, so misssing an already reported bug can hap
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 09:04:59PM -0600, Donald J Bindner wrote:
>> When you compile a kernel and check the help on a module, you'll
>> never find "If unsure, don't say Y." Something to think about...
> That's because the string is "If unsure, say N
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 06:02:00AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 09:04:59PM -0600, Donald J Bindner wrote:
> > When you compile a kernel and check the help on a module, you'll
> > never find "If unsure, don't say Y." Something to think about...
>
> That's because the str
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 09:04:59PM -0600, Donald J Bindner wrote:
> When you compile a kernel and check the help on a module, you'll
> never find "If unsure, don't say Y." Something to think about...
That's because the string is "If unsure, say N".
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/linux-2.6.10$ grep u
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:24:26 -0800, Blunt Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I put in the time to figure out
>the debian way of doing Exim (and I'm still not sure I understand it,
>but at for now I have it working).
Please file a bug against exim4-base stating which part of the
description in /us
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:01:45 +1100, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If something like this is different, then not only should Debian
>supplied documentation reflect the change, but a list of differences
>should appear in README.Debian.
One thing I have learned in the last 24 hours is that pe
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 10:07:11PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * John Hasler
>
> If you are unsure then you should not use split configuration.
>
> I think the last point sums it up -- use monolithic configuration if
> you don't understand what the question is about.
I've installed exim ma
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 04:11:16PM -0800, Blunt Jackson wrote:
> it through the web. Except, I suppose there is, I was just too dumb to
> find it. Gulp.
I had a similar experience when I reported bugs in Unstable on the list
and was roundly flamed for not reading bug reports.
apt-listchanges is
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I have found the exim-4 packages to be extremely well organized and
handy. I used to use the "one-file" method, and was simply delighted
when I found how easy it was to switch and tweak the individual files
that I needed to when I had to create a more complicated mail se
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:08:41 -0600, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why were you not referring to the Debian documentation? It has been (or
> should have been) edited to reflect the "Debian way".
>
Well... I guess I'm the typical dumb user in this case. I didn't know
the documentatio
Scripsit John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm writes:
>> I maintain one package whose upstream author apparently thought that
>> $PATH would be a good place to look for a system-wide configuration
>> file. I changed that to look in /etc instead, which makes the
>> configuration mechan
Blunt Jackson writes:
> I'm still not sure I understand it, but at for now I have it
> working). There was a substantial amount of hair pulling and cursing due
> to the disparity between what I saw on my hard drive and what I saw in
> the online documentation.
Why were you not referring to the Deb
> "John" == John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Henning Makholm writes:
>> I maintain one package whose upstream author apparently thought that
>> $PATH would be a good place to look for a system-wide configuration
>> file. I changed that to look in /etc instead, whic
I have found the exim-4 packages to be extremely well organized and
handy. I used to use the "one-file" method, and was simply delighted
when I found how easy it was to switch and tweak the individual files
that I needed to when I had to create a more complicated mail server.
Thomas
--
To UNS
* Marc Haber:
> Is it really necessary to take our internal issues to upstream's
> mailing lists? Can't we have internal flamage internally?
Well, from time to time, many of us have an urgent desire to inflict
harm on the project. Maybe this was just one of the usual excesses?
I don't know.
The
* John Hasler
| William Ballard writes:
| > The exim4 config asks you if you want itty bitty or one monolothic config
| > file. It offers you the option of doing it the upstream way.
|
| Does it tell you which is the upstream way? Most new users won't know.
The Debian exim4 packages can eith
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:02:21 -0800, Blunt Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The Exim
>website gracefully acknowledged the Debian configuration mechanism as "elegant"
>and then advised that if I needed help with it, I should contact the
>debian distribution
>owners. Maybe I missed some great docum
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:31:20 +, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Blunt Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > As a general note, I find it annoying, frustrating, and confusing
> > whenever ANY debian package has a substantially different
> > installation or configuratin mechani
John Hasler wrote:
> Henning Makholm writes:
>> I maintain one package whose upstream author apparently thought that
>> $PATH would be a good place to look for a system-wide configuration
>> file. I changed that to look in /etc instead, which makes the
>> configuration mechanism in Debian substant
Henning Makholm writes:
> I maintain one package whose upstream author apparently thought that
> $PATH would be a good place to look for a system-wide configuration
> file. I changed that to look in /etc instead, which makes the
> configuration mechanism in Debian substantially different from
> ups
Scripsit Blunt Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As a general note, I find it annoying, frustrating, and confusing
> whenever ANY debian package has a substantially different
> installation or configuratin mechanism than the mechanism documented
> by the software publisher.
Perhaps Debian is not the
William Ballard writes:
> The exim4 config asks you if you want itty bitty or one monolothic config
> file. It offers you the option of doing it the upstream way.
Does it tell you which is the upstream way? Most new users won't know.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
* Blunt Jackson:
> Taking Exim as an *example* of this, when I installed Exim, and ran
> into some problems configuring it the way I wanted, comparing the
> application documentation on the Exim website with what apt-get
> installed I found it utterly different.
Just because the configuration fil
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 11:02:21AM -0800, Blunt Jackson wrote:
> and do utterly wacked out things to it. The upside *may* be having a
The exim4 config asks you if you want itty bitty or one monolothic
config file. It offers you the option of doing it the upstream way.
What's the problem?
--
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:16:24 -0500, Greg Folkert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Except I'd rather see --keepcomments as
>default and changed to --removecomments. My only gripe, pretty minimal.
And fixed soon. #295735.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies,
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:16:24 -0500, Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Debian is unpopular Many places where Debian has changed the "globbed"
> config. Many people HATE little bitty files to make things work. Me,
> best thing since Sliced Bread. Except I'd rather see --keepcomments as
> d
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 16:36 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
[...let's all get along outside Debian please snippage...]
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >To: Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Cc: [EMAIL P
71 matches
Mail list logo
