On Tue, Sep 09, 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> > It could be something like debian/track where 'track' is a list of files
> > to be tracked by this package as if they were contained within it when
> > it was built (even though they are actually downloaded during the package's
> > postinst or by anoth
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:17:13AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>> > Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapot? :
>> > > I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing
>> > > one of those w
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:17:13AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapot? :
> > > I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing
> > > one of those ways. Go on. It's my honest belief that it ca
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:37:04AM -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:13:59AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
> > > not build a proper debian
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:24:07AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> > * installs that package in such a way that it's registered in dpkg's
> > database
>
> do the install in the background when the dpkg DB area is unlocked
Yuck! Please, no! Error handling
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:17:13AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapot? :
> > I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing
> > one of those ways. Go on. It's my honest belief that it can't be done
> > correctly; I'm open to hearing ways i
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> OK. How does one create an installer package which correctly does the
> following:
>
> * creates a Debian package for the thing it's installing
the installer contains a diff and dsc, downloads the orig source,
then builds a .deb
> * installs that pack
Ryan Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:13:59AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
> > > not build a proper debian package
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > At this point, the question is not how to do it. I can think about 30
> > ways to do it, while I'm surely not the expert here.
>
> I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing
> one of those ways. Go on. It's my honest be
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> unless you think that it's better for the installer package to spit
> out a .deb somewhere which you then have to install separately,
> which seems to me like a step backwards in convenience.
Depends, generating a deb has some bright sides: 'dpkg -S'
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:13:59AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
> > not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software?
>
> How can they do so
Colin Watson wrote:
? I think that's a minimal specification for a correct installer package
which does its work by creating Debian packages; unless you think that
it's better for the installer package to spit out a .deb somewhere which
you then have to install separately, which seems to me like a
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:42:46PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
[Please stop sending me private copies of list mail.]
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapot? :
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:08:34PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapot? :
> > > > On Mon, Sep 0
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:08:34PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapot? :
> > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > > Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:08:34PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapot? :
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
> > > not build a proper debian package when installi
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
> > not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software?
>
> How can they do so? Installing a package
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
> not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software?
How can they do so? Installing a package with 'dpkg -i' in the postinst
of another package isn't
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> I did not noticed clear answer about my proposal about the non-free
> software installer in contrib.
It might help if you posted a summary of the thread.
> Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
> not buil
Hi,
I did not noticed clear answer about my proposal about the non-free
software installer in contrib.
Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software?
If so, which severity is appropriate? I do not think tha
19 matches
Mail list logo
