Re: 2 ftpds packages conflicts

On Tuesday, November 7, 2006 12:31 pm, Bjørn Mork wrote: > So? It's up to the adminstrator to configure the packages after > installation. > > The default of 0.0.0.0:80 may work as expected in some cases, but the > package maintainer cannot guarantee this. And that has nothing to do > with othe

Re: RE: 2 ftpds packages conflicts

Just a thought. I have no need to install such, somewhat conflicting, services: The equivs package is meant to trick dpkg. Perhaps equivs, or some modification of equivs, can be useful here? - Original Message - From: Jean-Sebastien Pilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, November 6, 2

Re: Modifying upstream source

On Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:34 am, Martin Kelly wrote: > I have a question about modifying the upstream source of a package > for debianization. > options mentioned deleted. > Which of these should I do in order to comply with standards and > good practice? > There are also the dpatc

Re: preinst: ( "configure" && [ -n "$2" ] ) or ( "configure" && [ -z "$2" ] ) ?

On Monday, October 9 2006 0:19 am, Stephen Gran wrote: > > Regarding the following part of a preinst maintainer script: > > > > > > 1)case "$1" in > > 2)configure) > > 3)if [ -n "$2" ]; then > > 4)mkdir -p dir/subDir > > 5)# First time instal

preinst: ( "configure" && [ -n "$2" ] ) or ( "configure" && [ -z "$2" ] ) ?

Regarding the following part of a preinst maintainer script: 1)case "$1" in 2)configure) 3)if [ -n "$2" ]; then 4)mkdir -p dir/subDir 5)# First time install. Can we autodetect the old settings? 6)test for the old settings A

debconf; unattended package installation; lvm2.

1) debconf talks about setting {false,true} flags to questions. Does the set of possible flags predefined or can I invent a flag of my own? For example, can I have an "install the package unattendedly" flag? 2) The lvm2 deb doesn't have a config file in the sense of debconf config fi

Re: xlibs (4.1.0-16) depends on xlibs (>> 4.1.0). Can you explian?

It does not break anything here. I asked because it looks odd. -- Shaul Karl email: shaulka(replace with the at - @ - character)bezeqint.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

xlibs (4.1.0-16) depends on xlibs (>> 4.1.0). Can you explian?

xlibs (4.1.0-16) depends on xlibs (>> 4.1.0) and on other packages. Assuming this is not an error, how can it be and what does it achieve? -- Shaul Karl email: shaulka(replace with the at - @ - character)bezeqint.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subj

Re: lintian warning

- > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Shaul Karl email: shaulka(replace with the at - @ - character)bezeqint.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Documentation

On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 04:40:38PM +0430, Pratik Sinha wrote: > is there anyother documentation available on deb packaging other than > packaging manual and the maint-guide??? > You might try debian-policy, and look in the devel pages of www.debian.org. For specific packaging questions try this

Re: Documentation

On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 04:40:38PM +0430, Pratik Sinha wrote: > is there anyother documentation available on deb packaging other than packaging >manual and the maint-guide??? > You might try debian-policy, and look in the devel pages of www.debian.org. For specific packaging questions try this

Re: /usr/doc/tkman and the package maintainer duties.

What do you mean by `the required compatibility symlink'? Isn't /usr/doc obsolete? And yse, I do use debhelper.

Re: /usr/doc/tkman and the package maintainer duties.

What do you mean by `the required compatibility symlink'? Isn't /usr/doc obsolete? And yse, I do use debhelper. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]