On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
The one I'm involved with is base-passwd; but it only doesn't use
debconf because I've been putting off dealing with figuring out how to
convert it over (since it ideally ought
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 23:43 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 10:27 +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> > That seems to be accepted by everyone, so I've pushed it to policy now.
> >
> > I hope that's the right thing... Please tell me if I've done something
> > the wrong way, or wha
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 10:27 +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> That seems to be accepted by everyone, so I've pushed it to policy now.
>
> I hope that's the right thing... Please tell me if I've done something
> the wrong way, or whatever.
It looks like you've modified the 3.8.1.0 changelog entry i
Andrew McMillan writes:
> That seems to be accepted by everyone, so I've pushed it to policy now.
>
> I hope that's the right thing... Please tell me if I've done something
> the wrong way, or whatever.
The Policy change is good. When adding it to the mainline, please also
add an item to upgra
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 16:44 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andrew McMillan writes:
>
> > Here's an updated patch to apply the following wording:
> >
> > Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
> > Prompting must be done by communicating through a program, such
>
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 12:27 +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
> Prompting must be done by communicating through a program, such
> as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration
> Management Specificat
On Freitag, 20. März 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Here's an updated patch to apply the following wording:
> Seconded.
me too.
(not quoted as this aint a GR. :-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 13:59 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:13:19AM +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 10:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > > Packages that are essential or that are dependencies of essential
> > > packages may fall back on a
Andrew McMillan writes:
> Here's an updated patch to apply the following wording:
>
> Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
> Prompting must be done by communicating through a program, such
> as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration
>
Andrew McMillan writes:
> On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 10:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Packages that are essential or that are dependencies of essential
>> packages may fall back on another prompting method if no such
>> interface is available when they are executed.
> Since we're essen
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:13:19AM +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 10:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Packages that are essential or that are dependencies of essential
> > packages may fall back on another prompting method if no such
> > interface is available w
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 10:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Packages that are essential or that are dependencies of essential
> packages may fall back on another prompting method if no such
> interface is available when they are executed.
Since we're essentially saying that all package
Holger Levsen writes:
> Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
> Prompting must be done by communicating through a program, such
> as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration
> Management Specification, version 2 or higher. Exem
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 20:26 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Management Specification, version 2 or higher, unless no such
> > interface is available when they are executed.
> >
>
> Should we require that non-essential packages depend on debconf if they're
> going to do prompting?
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, sean finney wrote:
> hi raphael,
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 08:10:21AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, sean finney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > Is there actually packages that does not use debconf
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 19. März 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
> > Prompting must be done by communicating through a program, such
> > as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration
> > Management Speci
hi raphael,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 08:10:21AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, sean finney wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
> >
> > dpkg...
>
> Not anymore, no. There's no
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, sean finney wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
>
> dpkg...
Not anymore, no. There's no prompting in any of the dpkg's maintainer
scripts.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Contribuez
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
> > Also, there is the funny case of config scripts; these are run
> > even before preinst, and before any pre-dependencies are installed. And
> > yet, these scripts are often used to prompt using debconf; they must b
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
dpkg...
sean
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Mar 18 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The only other thing that I'm not sure about is what to do about preinst
> scripts. Are we requiring debconf for preinst prompting (and hence
> requiring a Pre-Depends) for non-essential packages?
Why should debconf be treated any differently t
On Wed, Mar 18 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
ucf has code to fall back to using prompting to the console if
debconf is not available. Of course, this fails if the installation is
being run from a GUI, with the real tty buried.
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> Also, there is the funny case of config scripts; these are run
> even before preinst, and before any pre-dependencies are installed. And
> yet, these scripts are often used to prompt using debconf; they must be
> no-ops if debconf is not yet installed (they g
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 08:26:54PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The only other thing that I'm not sure about is what to do about
>> preinst scripts. Are we requiring debconf for preinst prompting (and
>> hence requiring a Pre-Depends) for non-essential packages?
> I th
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 08:26:54PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The only other thing that I'm not sure about is what to do about preinst
> scripts. Are we requiring debconf for preinst prompting (and hence
> requiring a Pre-Depends) for non-essential packages?
I think we should be requiring it.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:46:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Holger Levsen writes:
> > > sadly this didden happen in 2003-2009, but I'd like this to become a
> > > reality for our next release sometime in 2010 or hopefully not
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 14:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how many of these were false positives, but I'm fairly sure
> that at least some of them are real:
>
> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/read-in-maintainer-script.html
Not all that many, and some will be false positives. I thi
Andrew McMillan writes:
> The current relevant text is:
>
> Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
> Prompting should be done by communicating through a program,
> such as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration
> Management Specif
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:46:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Holger Levsen writes:
>
> > sadly this didden happen in 2003-2009, but I'd like this to become a
> > reality for our next release sometime in 2010 or hopefully not 2011 ;-)
> >
> > Any takers? (To propose this as a release goal & bri
Bill Allombert writes:
> Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
I'm not sure how many of these were false positives, but I'm fairly sure
that at least some of them are real:
http://lintian.debian.org/tags/read-in-maintainer-script.html
> Should we draft an exception for the few
Holger Levsen writes:
> sadly this didden happen in 2003-2009, but I'd like this to become a
> reality for our next release sometime in 2010 or hopefully not 2011 ;-)
>
> Any takers? (To propose this as a release goal & bringing this into policy.)
This was one of the things that I was hoping to
Hi,
sadly this didden happen in 2003-2009, but I'd like this to become a reality
for our next release sometime in 2010 or hopefully not 2011 ;-)
Any takers? (To propose this as a release goal & bringing this into policy.)
Sadly I'm too busy for this, but I thought I'd at least remark it.
rega
32 matches
Mail list logo
