As I've seen bugs raised against packages that added the g _after_ the
soname in the package name instead than _between_ the name and the
soname, I ask:
- didn't we agree that would be better to add the "g" after the
soname like lib0g instead than libg0, to avoid confusion with
lib names alrea
David Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AFAIK, dpkg does only ask when the md5sum of the conffile changed. So if it
> didn't
> change, you get the old version.
dpkg asks when the md5sums of both versions - the one on your system
and the one in the package - change.
Guy
This is starting to lose policy relevance (if someone doesn't
volunteer to do out-of-us kerberos, it won't *be* an option, even if
someone does volunteer to setup a us-only site [or manage a directory
on the mpj site -- as long as I don't have to do anything more than
"dupload" I don't care which,
On Sat, Dec 20 1997 16:17 +1100 Hamish Moffatt writes:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 1997 at 01:31:38PM -0500, Scott Ellis wrote:
> > And the instant someone provides us with free software equivilant to ssh
> > or pgp, we'll move to use it. We need the functionality, unfortunatly
> > sometimes you have to use
On Fri, Dec 19 1997 20:37 GMT Adrian Bridgett writes:
> What about "dpkg-divert"? Sure - some people do edit /etc/init.d/whatever
> (particularly "network"), however there are many files in /etc/init.d that
> the vast majority of people won't change. If some behaviour needs to change,
> they may no
> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Why are you so opposed to them being conffiles anyway,
Santiago> I am NOT opposed to them being conffiles. I am opposed
Santiago> to them being conffiles without a rationale.
>> it doesn't make any difference to som
Perhaps they should be conffiles, and folks should be told about
`ediff' editting with emacs. I usually say N when it asks, then go
to an XEmacs and do [Tools | Compare | Two Files...] and merge the
new into the old, if appropriate. If you want a one button computer,
buy a Mac.
What's it l
> Let's make a conffile every script in /usr/bin, then.
Santiago,
Please shut up.
In order to change the status quo, you need to come up with a positive reason
for doing so (in this case, an example of a /etc/init.d script that definitely
should not be a conffile might be nice).
Saying ``I th
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Santiago Vila wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
>
> > > The policy does not explain why they should *all* be conffiles.
> >
> > I can think of a reason to modify almost any /etc/init.d/* script, on the
> > grounds tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> > The policy does not explain why they should *all* be conffiles.
>
> I can think of a reason to modify almost any /etc/init.d/* script, on the
> grounds that they effect the startup behavior of the system.
/sbin/in
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Could somebody please explain the rationale for having *all*
> /etc/init.d/* scripts as conffiles?
Simple, if they are ALL conffiles, then the local sysadmin isn't
unpleasntly suprised when the specific file he edited turned out to NOT
be a conffile.
C
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
>
> > [...] stopping these files from being conffiles will
>
> No. This is the most common misunderstanding: I'm *not* saying they
> should *all* have to stop being conffiles. I'm saying that they should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> [...] stopping these files from being conffiles will
No. This is the most common misunderstanding: I'm *not* saying they
should *all* have to stop being conffiles. I'm saying that they should
be conffiles (when
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I said:
Could somebody please explain the rationale for having *all*
/etc/init.d/* scripts as conffiles?
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 15:23:49 +0100
From: Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I find useful to modify some of the scripts. (e.g. I don't need RPC and
I
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 1997 at 01:56:35PM -0500, Scott Ellis wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> [snip policy]
> > >
> > > Could somebody please explain the rationale for having *all*
> > > /etc/init.d/* scripts as conffiles?
>
> [snip
On Fri, Dec 19, 1997 at 01:56:35PM -0500, Scott Ellis wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Santiago Vila wrote:
[snip policy]
> >
> > Could somebody please explain the rationale for having *all*
> > /etc/init.d/* scripts as conffiles?
[snip]
> You can deactivate OR CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR of the program b
Joost Kooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That doesn't seem "simple" to me. It requires that a lot of games be
> patched to allow for a command-line switch to override the location of
> data files.
I doubt that it's that hard to implement. Suggest it to the game's
author at least.
Guy
On Fri, Dec 19, 1997 at 01:28:52PM -0500, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
> 1) a hardware flake out [computer at a residential site with
>poor environment control, cheap IDE disks -- you know, what most
>developers have, as well as many users] that *seems* to have recovered
>cleanly.
> 2) running
Hi,
>>"Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hamish> On Fri, Dec 19, 1997 at 03:12:37PM +1300, Radu Duta wrote:
>> What I'm thinking is that maybe it should be the responsability of
>> dpkg, since it is the package manager after all. The package
>> itself works as is and there wou
Hi,
>>"Fabrizio" == Fabrizio Polacco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If per file mdsums are to be recorded, then maybe hte too should
>> be pgp-signed (possibly by dpkg at package build time, possibly a
>> detached signature).
Fabrizio> as I already said, I think that maintainer's signatures are
Hi,
>>"Joel" == Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joel> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Joel> Regarding "Re: are md5sums mandatory for all packages?" of 10:31
Joel> AM -0800 1997-12-19, Scott Ellis wrote:
>> And the instant someone provides us with free software equivilant
>> to ssh or
On Sat, Dec 20, 1997 at 04:28:02PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>Well, calculation at install time doesn't prevent somebody
>modifying the .deb (which is easy), especially in the case
>of non-official sites. Does dpkg check the MD5sum with
>the one in the Packages file or in the archive itself?
>Ev
On Fri, Dec 19, 1997 at 03:12:37PM +1300, Radu Duta wrote:
> What I'm thinking is that maybe it should be the responsability of dpkg,
> since it is the package manager after all. The package itself works as
> is and there would be not much extra benefit from having the md5sums in
> the package, th
On Fri, Dec 19, 1997 at 01:31:38PM -0500, Scott Ellis wrote:
> And the instant someone provides us with free software equivilant to ssh
> or pgp, we'll move to use it. We need the functionality, unfortunatly
> sometimes you have to use what you can get.
Hmmm. Perhaps this is a flaw in the non-US
> Kerberos is free software and it is more than equivalent to ssh. It also
> has the advantage of being a standards track protocol (RFC 1510).
It also has the disadvantage of being developed in the US. I *have*
Kerberos V5 debian packages; one of the last things I did at Cygnus
was to check a de
> Could somebody please explain the rationale for having *all*
> /etc/init.d/* scripts as conffiles?
They are as conffiles as autoexec.bat in DOS is.
(uh.. was that good English?)
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> All right, I think I a beginning to agree. Maybe dpkg *should
> have integrity checking (as well as permission and ownership being
> recorded record [in the .list file maybe?] -- like a ls -al listing)
I am always annoyed by having dpkg -c and dpkg -L use a d
27 matches
Mail list logo
