Jean-Christophe Dubacq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 08:53:00PM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
>> > Although this clutters up /etc they could be saved as *.dpkg-last or
>> > so. New packages' conffiles can be saved as *.dpkg-new just like dpkg
>> > currently does if one c
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 08:53:00PM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> > Although this clutters up /etc they could be saved as *.dpkg-last or
> > so. New packages' conffiles can be saved as *.dpkg-new just like dpkg
> > currently does if one chooses not to install the new file. Before a
> > new ver
Hi!
* Matthias Julius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070306 19:16]:
> Although this clutters up /etc they could be saved as *.dpkg-last or
> so. New packages' conffiles can be saved as *.dpkg-new just like dpkg
> currently does if one chooses not to install the new file. Before a
> new version is install
sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 19:23 +0100, Nico Golde wrote:
>>
>> The implementation was not really difficult, the patch file
>> itself is 200 lines alltogether.
>
> not bad :) i have to admit i haven't looked at the patch.
>
>> > would be to see the difference
Nico Golde a écrit :
> * sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-05 20:00]:
>> anyway, good luck waking up the sleeping dpkg monster.
>
> Sleeping is good, the first bug mentioning the need of a
> merge functionality is 8 years old...
> I can not really understand this since we build up on tools
Hey,
* sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-05 20:00]:
> On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 19:23 +0100, Nico Golde wrote:
> > > would be to see the differences between the new maintainer conffile and
> > > the previous version of the maintainer conffile.
> > >
> > > to implement this, one would simply nee
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 19:23 +0100, Nico Golde wrote:
>
> The implementation was not really difficult, the patch file
> itself is 200 lines alltogether.
not bad :) i have to admit i haven't looked at the patch.
> > would be to see the differences between the new maintainer conffile and
> > the p
Hi,
* sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-05 19:07]:
> just to throw in my $0.02,
>
> On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 18:43 +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> > I haven't tested your patch, but I like the general idea.
> >
> > A good example is exim4. Where I have greylistd installed and configured
> > i
just to throw in my $0.02,
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 18:43 +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> I haven't tested your patch, but I like the general idea.
>
> A good example is exim4. Where I have greylistd installed and configured
> it to allow SSL connections. Every once in a while exim gets an update
>
Nico Golde schrieb:
> what about the following idea.
> If a configuration file is marked as conffile in a package
> you have the possibility to select between:
>
> - Install the new version of the configuration file from the
> package
> - Keep your current installed version of the file
> - Vie
Hi,
* Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-03 09:34]:
> what about the following idea.
> If a configuration file is marked as conffile in a package
> you have the possibility to select between:
[...]
> What about the possibility to view the patch, edit it with
> your favorite editor and the ju
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:33:30 +0100, Nico Golde wrote:
> you always have the problem that you
> might miss new configuration flags or you have to adapt the
> new file manually from your old backup and "merge" the
> changes.
Ack, that's annoying IMO.
> What about the possibility to view the pa
12 matches
Mail list logo
