Re: Question about debconf notes

2003-03-02 Thread Frank Lichtenheld
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 06:39:55PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > I'm packaging a program that generates a cache in the users home > > directory. This cache must be erased for each new upstream release (that > > would not be often though). > > Can't t

Re: Question about debconf notes

2003-03-02 Thread Frank Lichtenheld
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 06:39:55PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > I'm packaging a program that generates a cache in the users home > > directory. This cache must be erased for each new upstream release (that > > would not be often though). > > Can't t

Re: Question about debconf notes

2003-03-02 Thread Andrew Stribblehill
Quoting Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2003-03-02 06:55:29 GMT): > Andrew Stribblehill wrote: > > But yes, I think a debconf note is worth doing since without it, the > > package will become useless for those who don't know to flush the > > cache. > No! > > Policy 2.3.9.1 > > If a package

Re: Question about debconf notes

2003-03-02 Thread Colin Watson
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 06:39:55PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > I'm packaging a program that generates a cache in the users home > directory. This cache must be erased for each new upstream release (that > would not be often though). Can't the cache include its version number, so that the pro

Re: Question about debconf notes

2003-03-02 Thread Thomas Viehmann
Hi. (Not that I know the least thing about anything, but I think that policy quite clearly states that Andrew's suggestion is wrong.) Andrew Stribblehill wrote: > Quoting Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2003-03-02 05:39:55 GMT): >>I'm packaging a program that generates a cache in the users

Re: Question about debconf notes

2003-03-02 Thread Andrew Stribblehill
Quoting Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2003-03-02 06:55:29 GMT): > Andrew Stribblehill wrote: > > But yes, I think a debconf note is worth doing since without it, the > > package will become useless for those who don't know to flush the > > cache. > No! > > Policy 2.3.9.1 > > If a package

Re: Question about debconf notes

2003-03-02 Thread Colin Watson
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 06:39:55PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > I'm packaging a program that generates a cache in the users home > directory. This cache must be erased for each new upstream release (that > would not be often though). Can't the cache include its version number, so that the pro

Re: Question about debconf notes

2003-03-02 Thread Andrew Stribblehill
Quoting Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2003-03-02 05:39:55 GMT): > Hi. > > I'm packaging a program that generates a cache in the users home > directory. This cache must be erased for each new upstream release (that > would not be often though). Should i place a debconf note about this in t

Re: Question about debconf notes

2003-03-02 Thread Thomas Viehmann
Hi. (Not that I know the least thing about anything, but I think that policy quite clearly states that Andrew's suggestion is wrong.) Andrew Stribblehill wrote: > Quoting Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2003-03-02 05:39:55 GMT): >>I'm packaging a program that generates a cache in the users

Re: Question about debconf notes

2003-03-02 Thread Andrew Stribblehill
Quoting Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2003-03-02 05:39:55 GMT): > Hi. > > I'm packaging a program that generates a cache in the users home > directory. This cache must be erased for each new upstream release (that > would not be often though). Should i place a debconf note about this in t