On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Is the reason why you can't rely on configured for the prerm case the same
> reason why you can't rely on it for the postinst case: because of breaking
> circular dependencies and choosing one package to deconfigure first? It
No, I believe it's a design
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> Please find a proposed patch in attachment. Feel free to reword/improve
> if needed.
Is the reason why you can't rely on configured for the prerm case the same
reason why you can't rely on it for the postinst case: because of breaking
circular dependencies and choosing
"Adam D. Barratt" writes:
> The Policy section detailing the "Distribution" field in .changes files
> specifies that the field may contain a space-separated list of
> distributions. Whilst this is technically accurate, the feature has been
> deprecated since the "testing" distribution became an o
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.1.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
The Policy section detailing the "Distribution" field in .changes files
specifies that the field may contain a space-separated list of
distributions. Whilst this is technically accurate, the feature has been
deprecated since the "test
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:31:34AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index f5c6818..8727be1 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -4323,10 +4323,17 @@ Build-Depends: foo [!i386] | bar [!amd64]
> The Depends field should also be used
Hi,
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> There isn't any further discussion of this in the bug log, and I don't
> think there was a reply outside of the bug log. I agree with Colin that
> simply changing present to unpacked is potentially confusing, but I would
> like to clarify the case fo
6 matches
Mail list logo
