On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Debconf should be able to handle things like that with the 'web' option.
> > If you are remotely installing, you shouldn't depend on an ssh or telnet
> > session staying up. And vice versa, upgrading a webserver should NOT let
> > you use the 'web' option
Seth Cohn wrote:
> Debconf should be able to handle things like that with the 'web' option.
> If you are remotely installing, you shouldn't depend on an ssh or telnet
> session staying up. And vice versa, upgrading a webserver should NOT let
> you use the 'web' option of debconf.
Er, debconf incl
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 11:58:38PM -0400, Steven R . Baker wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I just adopted AfterStep, but ran into some problems with the
> adoption process. The previous AfterStep package packaged version
> 1.6.10, and the current (stable) version is 1.8.3. So, after speaking
> with the
> So, I just created a new package. Should I have merged the
> changelogs into one, and made the packages look similar?
Yes. If the package name is the same, you should have.
The package should as cleanly as possible replace the old one.
History is important, even if it's just "new version up
Hi everyone,
I just adopted AfterStep, but ran into some problems with the
adoption process. The previous AfterStep package packaged version
1.6.10, and the current (stable) version is 1.8.3. So, after speaking
with the previous maintainer (a while ago) I packaged 1.8.3.
When packaging 1.8.3,
Seth Cohn wrote:
> However, I just read the documentation, and noticed one catch: the client
> must be on the same machine (for security purposes). While this will
> still solve the disconnect problem (if your ssh/telnet dies, you
> can reconnect and still run lynx/whatever) it's not the solution
Thanks. That's basically what I was thinking, only it never occurred
to me at all until after the package was installed. I'll fix it.
Which leads me to my next question. What's the proper way to do
another release of my package?
I changed the control files, did a dch -i, and stuff, and did
dp
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Debconf should be able to handle things like that with the 'web' option.
> > If you are remotely installing, you shouldn't depend on an ssh or telnet
> > session staying up. And vice versa, upgrading a webserver should NOT let
> > you use the 'web' optio
Seth Cohn wrote:
> Debconf should be able to handle things like that with the 'web' option.
> If you are remotely installing, you shouldn't depend on an ssh or telnet
> session staying up. And vice versa, upgrading a webserver should NOT let
> you use the 'web' option of debconf.
Er, debconf inc
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 11:58:38PM -0400, Steven R . Baker wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I just adopted AfterStep, but ran into some problems with the
> adoption process. The previous AfterStep package packaged version
> 1.6.10, and the current (stable) version is 1.8.3. So, after speaking
> with th
> So, I just created a new package. Should I have merged the
> changelogs into one, and made the packages look similar?
Yes. If the package name is the same, you should have.
The package should as cleanly as possible replace the old one.
History is important, even if it's just "new version u
Hi everyone,
I just adopted AfterStep, but ran into some problems with the
adoption process. The previous AfterStep package packaged version
1.6.10, and the current (stable) version is 1.8.3. So, after speaking
with the previous maintainer (a while ago) I packaged 1.8.3.
When packaging 1.8.3
> Thats stuff that can actually cost money and if it does you will hate
> the stupid sawfish *sorry, but thats a _absolutly random_ :) name,
> nothing against sawfish, change at will* for bothering you to drive to
> the system and press return.
Debconf should be able to handle things like that wit
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"goswin" == goswin brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> goswin> Yes, pretty strong words. Hope they wake up some people.
>
> I suggest you give it a little more thought, and a little more
> analysis, if you seriously want to do this.
> Thats stuff that can actually cost money and if it does you will hate
> the stupid sawfish *sorry, but thats a _absolutly random_ :) name,
> nothing against sawfish, change at will* for bothering you to drive to
> the system and press return.
Debconf should be able to handle things like that wi
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"goswin" == goswin brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> goswin> Yes, pretty strong words. Hope they wake up some people.
>
> I suggest you give it a little more thought, and a little more
> analysis, if you seriously want to do this.
>>"goswin" == goswin brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
goswin> Yes, pretty strong words. Hope they wake up some people.
I suggest you give it a little more thought, and a little more
analysis, if you seriously want to do this.
goswin> It was a lot of work to get to debconf (also n
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 03:01:19PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> include your bugfixes. If the upstream author doesn't like debian he
> might not include the debian dir, but that should allways patch
I can't see how having an upstream debian dir is anything but a nuisance.
It will always be ou
>>"goswin" == goswin brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
goswin> Yes, pretty strong words. Hope they wake up some people.
I suggest you give it a little more thought, and a little more
analysis, if you seriously want to do this.
goswin> It was a lot of work to get to debconf (also
Debian Newbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, All. I have two questions about deb packages.
>...
> Also, what is the correct procedure to deal with upgrades from upstream?
> My patches won't apply correctly to the newer version of the software...
> :-( Do I have to patch it by hand? Is there any
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 12:25:36AM +0200, Jens Müller wrote:
> Is it necessary to cross-post all messages that go to this list???
>
i think no, otherwise this list would have not much sense.
-[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok ]--[ ICQ: 56447243
--[ get my public gpg key at http
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 03:01:19PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> include your bugfixes. If the upstream author doesn't like debian he
> might not include the debian dir, but that should allways patch
I can't see how having an upstream debian dir is anything but a nuisance.
It will always be
Debian Newbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, All. I have two questions about deb packages.
>...
> Also, what is the correct procedure to deal with upgrades from upstream?
> My patches won't apply correctly to the newer version of the software...
> :-( Do I have to patch it by hand? Is there an
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 12:25:36AM +0200, Jens Müller wrote:
> Is it necessary to cross-post all messages that go to this list???
>
i think no, otherwise this list would have not much sense.
-[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok ]--[ ICQ: 56447243
--[ get my public gpg key at htt
Hi, All. I have two questions about deb packages.
Suppose that I have made a deb package, but that it is not part of
Debian. Which section should I put it into so that it doesn't conflict
with existing sections?
For instance, should I put it into "Section: local/web" or should I put
it into "Sect
25 matches
Mail list logo
