Re: Removal of logfiles?

1998-07-25 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Jul 25, Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'd suggest that all logfiles will be removed when the package >> is purged, but is that written down somewhere and do packages >> make use of it? >Don't you dare... I think that should be up to the administrator... Then please give us

More thoughts on dpkg prompting

1998-07-25 Thread Raul Miller
I've been thinking a bit more about implementation issues for dealing with too many prompts during installation. (*) we still need to emphasize the need for reasonable defaults, introducing this configuration mechanism doesn't solve problems, it just gives another way of dealing with problems. (*

Re: Removal of logfiles?

1998-07-25 Thread Russell Coker
On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, Martin Schulze wrote: >Turbo Fredriksson wrote: > >> > I'd suggest that all logfiles will be removed when the package >> > is purged, but is that written down somewhere and do packages >> > make use of it? >> >> Don't you dare... I think that should be up to the administrator.

Re: [branden: Re: Bug#24853 acknowledged by developer (I have a "doc" symlink (so what do I win? :-))]

1998-07-25 Thread aqy6633
> > I suppose this needs to be taken to the policy group. Either we need to > > support folks who have /usr/X11R6 mounted from a different device, or we > > need to forbid it. Either way something has to change. > > We could always go with door number 3, and do something truly radical. > People

Re: Removal of logfiles?

1998-07-25 Thread paulwade
On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, Martin Schulze wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Database, this reminds me. The *SQL packages ought to ask in their > postrm script if the database data shall be remove, too. I'd like > to see the same (I'd prefer a non-asking mechanism) would happen to > not maintained

Re: Removal of logfiles?

1998-07-25 Thread Raul Miller
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Database, this reminds me. The *SQL packages ought to ask in their > postrm script if the database data shall be remove, too. I'd like to > see the same (I'd prefer a non-asking mechanism) would happen to not > maintained (i.e. no rotating script, no pack

Re: Removal of logfiles?

1998-07-25 Thread paulwade
On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, Raul Miller wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A few weeks ago I was running dselect via telnet and the remote machine > > got disconnected at exactly the wrong time. When I reconnected, I had to > > purge and reinstall a package to finish the upgrade. T

Re: Removal of logfiles?

1998-07-25 Thread Turbo Fredriksson
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Database, this reminds me. The *SQL packages ought to ask in their > postrm script if the database data shall be remove, too. I'd like > to see the same (I'd prefer a non-asking mechanism) would happen to > not maintained (i.e. no rotating script, no

Re: Removal of logfiles?

1998-07-25 Thread Turbo Fredriksson
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A reminder email won't necessarily work. Even if you had a dependency > on mail transport agent, you can uninstall (which means dependencies > don't matter any more) then later purge. > > A question in the postrm would be more useful. As a last resort,

Re: Removal of logfiles?

1998-07-25 Thread Martin Schulze
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I'd suggest that all logfiles will be removed when the package > > > > is purged, but is that written down somewhere and do packages > > > > make use of it? > > > > > > Don't you dare... I think that should be up to the administrator... > > > > When a package is

Re: Removal of logfiles?

1998-07-25 Thread Raul Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A few weeks ago I was running dselect via telnet and the remote machine > got disconnected at exactly the wrong time. When I reconnected, I had to > purge and reinstall a package to finish the upgrade. This is a situation > where I would not want the l

Re: Removal of logfiles?

1998-07-25 Thread paulwade
On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, Martin Schulze wrote: > Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:57:33 +0200 > > Turbo Fredriksson wrote: > > > > I'd suggest that all logfiles will be removed when the package > > > is purged, but is that written down somewhere and do packages > > > make use of it? > > > > Don't you dare

Re: Removal of logfiles?

1998-07-25 Thread Turbo Fredriksson
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Turbo Fredriksson wrote: > > > Don't you dare... I think that should be up to the administrator... > > When a package is removed it has to remove itself entirely. I guess > logfiles also count. The logfile is not part of the package, it is 'part of

Re: Removal of logfiles?

1998-07-25 Thread Martin Schulze
Turbo Fredriksson wrote: > > I'd suggest that all logfiles will be removed when the package > > is purged, but is that written down somewhere and do packages > > make use of it? > > Don't you dare... I think that should be up to the administrator... When a package is removed it has to remove its

Re: Removal of logfiles?

1998-07-25 Thread Turbo Fredriksson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Schulze) writes: > What is our packaging policy about logfiles? [...] > I'd suggest that all logfiles will be removed when the package > is purged, but is that written down somewhere and do packages > make use of it? Don't you dare... I think that should be up to the a

Removal of logfiles?

1998-07-25 Thread Martin Schulze
Hi, this just came up to my mind, I'm not sure that even I have dealt with it so I think bringing it up publically is a good thing. What is our packaging policy about logfiles? Logfiles are rotated on a daily, weekly or monthly basis through the /etc/cron./ files. But what happens with the logf

Re: [branden: Re: Bug#24853 acknowledged by developer (I have a "doc" symlink (so what do I win? :-))]

1998-07-25 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, Jul 25, 1998 at 02:05:02AM -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I suppose this needs to be taken to the policy group. Either we need to > > support folks who have /usr/X11R6 mounted from a different device, or we > > need to forbid it. Either wa

Re: [branden: Re: Bug#24853 acknowledged by developer (I have a "doc" symlink (so what do I win? :-))]

1998-07-25 Thread Rob Browning
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I suppose this needs to be taken to the policy group. Either we need to > support folks who have /usr/X11R6 mounted from a different device, or we > need to forbid it. Either way something has to change. We could always go with door number 3, and d

Re: Summary[2]: dpkg and alpha/beta versioning

1998-07-25 Thread Rob Browning
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1.0~1foo-1 > 1.0~2bar-1 > ... > 1.0-1 So far, I think this is what everyone has intended. I can agree that "negative" is a misnomer in this case. -- Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930 -- T

[branden: Re: Bug#24853 acknowledged by developer (I have a "doc" symlink (so what do I win? :-))]

1998-07-25 Thread Branden Robinson
- Forwarded message from Branden Robinson - Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 15:45:54 -0500 From: Branden Robinson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Mark W. Eichin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bug#24853 acknowledged by developer (I have a "doc" symlink (so what do I win

Re: Summary[2]: dpkg and alpha/beta versioning

1998-07-25 Thread Raul Miller
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My concerns is that, in my understanding, some people seem to want to > add a "negative meaning" to the special char, whatever it will be, Only for that character, not for characters which follow. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]