On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 06:50:41PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> The most recent proposed patch [1] in this bug removes the rationale
> about ldconfig seeing dpkg's temporary files if you call it at the wrong
> point in the maintainer scripts. I'd like to suggest that this rationale
> should be reta
The most recent proposed patch [1] in this bug removes the rationale
about ldconfig seeing dpkg's temporary files if you call it at the wrong
point in the maintainer scripts. I'd like to suggest that this rationale
should be retained, if only in a footnote.
Would the proposer or the seconders obje
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 05:16:27PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 06:55:56PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > postrm
> > --
> >
> > An installed shared lib has been removed from the system just before
> > "postrm remove" is run. This is the proper time to cal
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 06:55:56PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
>
> --- policy.sgml.orig Sat Sep 8 16:12:53 2001
> +++ policy.sgml Sat Sep 8 17:06:01 2001
> @@ -3711,21 +3711,16 @@
>
>
>
> - must call ldconfig in its postinst
> - script if the first ar
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 06:55:56PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> I am proposing the following patch to policy. The difference from my
> previous proposal is to allow calling "ldconfig" in the "postinst" no
> matter what the arguments are. Detailed rationale follows, below.
>
> --- policy.sgml
I hereby second <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
--
G. Branden Robinson| There's nothing an agnostic can't
Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | believes in it or not.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- G
I am proposing the following patch to policy. The difference from my
previous proposal is to allow calling "ldconfig" in the "postinst" no
matter what the arguments are. Detailed rationale follows, below.
--- policy.sgml.origSat Sep 8 16:12:53 2001
+++ policy.sgml Sat Sep 8 17:06:01 2001
@
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06-Sep-01, 06:59 (CDT), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> BTW, what is it with all the Steves in this thread? :)
> Is your problem that there are so many of us, or that we seem to be
> excessively dim? I personally blame insufficient caff
On 06-Sep-01, 03:28 (CDT), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I thought we just established that calling ldconfig during 'postinst
>> upgrade' is wrong. Therefore, "all packages simply doing a ldconfig
>
> Where did we establish that? Please p
On 06-Sep-01, 06:59 (CDT), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> BTW, what is it with all the Steves in this thread? :)
Is your problem that there are so many of us, or that we seem to be
excessively dim? I personally blame insufficient caffiene...
Steve Greenland
(No offense intended to M
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:53:20PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
>> Perhaps the intention of the section 9 paragraph (above) was to
>> say
>>
>> However, the postrm script must not call ldconfig if invoked
>> with the argument "upgrade",
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05-Sep-01, 16:52 (CDT), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Vociferous Mole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > So? Isn't it a bug? This isn't a case of a policy change creating a bug,
>> > but of a existing bug being highlighted by the policy c
On 05-Sep-01, 16:52 (CDT), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vociferous Mole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So? Isn't it a bug? This isn't a case of a policy change creating a bug,
> > but of a existing bug being highlighted by the policy clarification.
>
> It doesn't break anything, so
Vociferous Mole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So? Isn't it a bug? This isn't a case of a policy change creating a bug,
> but of a existing bug being highlighted by the policy clarification.
It doesn't break anything, so it's not a bug.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Em
On 05-Sep-01, 04:21 (EDT), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:53:20PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 06:52:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >
> > Would there be a problem with enshrining this with the following
> > policy simplification?
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:53:20PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> --- policy.sgml.orig Sun Sep 2 22:50:21 2001
> +++ policy.sgml Tue Sep 4 20:50:04 2001
> @@ -3714,18 +3714,8 @@
> must call ldconfig in its postinst
> script if the first argument is configure and should
>
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:53:20PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 06:52:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> Would there be a problem with enshrining this with the following
> policy simplification?
Nope. It still has the same problem, i.e., all packages simply doing a
ldc
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:53:20PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Perhaps the intention of the section 9 paragraph (above) was to
> say
>
> However, the postrm script must not call ldconfig if invoked
> with the argument "upgrade", "failed-upgrade", or "disappear".
> The preins
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 06:52:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > --- policy.sgml.origSun Sep 2 22:50:21 2001
> > +++ policy.sgml Sun Sep 2 22:52:26 2001
> > @@ -3718,7 +3718,7 @@
> >
> >
> >
> > - However, postrm and preinst
Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- policy.sgml.origSun Sep 2 22:50:21 2001
> +++ policy.sgml Sun Sep 2 22:52:26 2001
> @@ -3718,7 +3718,7 @@
>
>
>
> - However, postrm and preinst scripts
> + However, postrm and postinst scripts
>must not call
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
In chapter 9, the last two paragraphs of the first section discuss
when to call "ldconfig" for packages that install shared libs.
The penultimate paragraph mentions POSTinst and POSTrm.
The last paragraph then mentions PREinst, b
21 matches
Mail list logo
