martin f krafft writes:
> I still think set -e is a good idea, but I realise it boils down to
> preference. If your experience is representative, then it's probably
> better to advocate not setting set -e in init scripts.
> What about maintainer scripts?
It's almost always correct, in a maintai
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.4.0
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
I asked in #debian-mentors about the usage of Replaces: and Conflicts:
when a package is split. Cyril suggested to provide an example in the
policy for that.
The patch below isn't tested at all, but should be human parsable to
un
also sprach Russ Allbery [2010.03.01.0744 +0100]:
> I think lsb-base should be fixed, but I also think set -e in an init
> script is a bad idea. I would argue that specifically because running
> commands that fail is a normal and expected init script operation, unlike
> nearly every other shell s
Uwe Kleine-König (02/03/2010):
> Hello,
Hi,
> I asked in #debian-mentors about the usage of Replaces: and Conflicts:
> when a package is split. Cyril suggested to provide an example in the
> policy for that.
I didn't really think of a specific example with package names and
versions, rather ju
4 matches
Mail list logo
