On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Are the additional things I said in my last message about this
> sufficient for you to clarify the policy ?
I think they are not sufficient.
Maybe I should propose an amendment to the current text.
--
"3bfc2ca36032b30f1040093bfee1f3ea" (a truly random
Santiago Vila writes ("Re: /etc/adjtime, /etc/timezone, etc."):
> On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Why can't you just handle this in the postinst, without involving dpkg
> > ?
>
> Of course I can, I've already done this (in base-files_2.0.1),
On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Santiago Vila writes ("Re: /etc/adjtime, /etc/timezone, etc."):
> ...
> > Of course it is possible. But the reason policy says some files should not
> > be conffiles is the following: "Doing this will lead to dpkg giving th
Santiago Vila writes ("Re: /etc/adjtime, /etc/timezone, etc."):
...
> Of course it is possible. But the reason policy says some files should not
> be conffiles is the following: "Doing this will lead to dpkg giving the
> user confusing and possibly dangerous options for
On 4 Sep 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Santiago> But the reason policy says some files should not be
> Santiago> conffiles is the following: "Doing this will lead to dpkg
> Santiago> giving the user confusing and possibly dangerous options
> Santiago> for conffile update when the package is
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> But the reason policy says some files should not be
Santiago> conffiles is the following: "Doing this will lead to dpkg
Santiago> giving the user confusing and possibly dangerous options
Santiago> for conffile update when
(thanks for answering :-)
On 4 Sep 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Santiago> Ok, I will answer myself :-) I have found a paragraph in
> Santiago> the packaging manual providing the rationale for not making
> Santiago> conffiles certain files. However, the given rationale is
> Santiago> not en
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> Ok, I will answer myself :-) I have found a paragraph in
Santiago> the packaging manual providing the rationale for not making
Santiago> conffiles certain files. However, the given rationale is
Santiago> not enough when th
Ok, I will answer myself :-)
I have found a paragraph in the packaging manual providing the rationale
for not making conffiles certain files. However, the given rationale is
not enough when the conffile is always the same, so I have just submitted
a bug against debian-policy asking for more ration
[ Please don't Cc:me, I will read your input in the list ]
Hi.
In bug #23255, Nicolás Lichtmaier reports that /etc/adjtime should
probably not be a "conffile" (i.e. a configuration file managed by dpkg
through the conffile mechanism), and he cites policy to support this.
However, since the defa
10 matches
Mail list logo
