Ben Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 05:32:12PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > OK, almost there. But one quickie:
> >
> > The sentence:
> > A package may not modify a conffile of another package.
> > was replaced by something better, but I'm not sure what the conclusion
> > was. How a
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 05:32:12PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> OK, almost there. But one quickie:
>
> The sentence:
> A package may not modify a conffile of another package.
> was replaced by something better, but I'm not sure what the conclusion
> was. How about:
> The maintainer scripts
OK, almost there. But one quickie:
The sentence:
A package may not modify a conffile of another package.
was replaced by something better, but I'm not sure what the conclusion
was. How about:
The maintainer scripts of a package may not modify a conffile of
_any_ package, including the one
Hi,
>>"Kai" == Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> They're now in the debian-policy package, as
>> /usr/doc/debian-policy/proposal.*
>>
>> The wording is weird, because it is written as a proposal.
Kai> Aah. It should maybe be copied to doc/package-developer
Kai> (ftp.debian.org)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland) wrote on 04.08.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 03-Aug-99, 11:56 (CDT), Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I second this. BTW, where are the policy changing rules written down? I
> > just looked and couldn't find them.
> >
>
> They're now in the debia
On 03-Aug-99, 11:56 (CDT), Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I second this. BTW, where are the policy changing rules written down? I
> just looked and couldn't find them.
>
They're now in the debian-policy package, as
/usr/doc/debian-policy/proposal.*
The wording is weird, because i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland) wrote on 17.07.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> BTW, both this proposal (#40766) and the general clean-up proposal
> (#40767) are currently stalled with only one official seconder (Joey
> Hess). I'd guess that Hamish generally approves...but unless I get at
> least
Steve Greenland wrote:
> What Hamish was pointing out is that it's okay to use emacs or vi or
> icepref to modify configuration files and even conffiles. The policy
> proposal was in no way meant to imply that you can't write programs to
> modify conffiles (either general or specific), just that t
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> inetd.conf is _not_ a conffile.
Ok, now I understand. In a previous mail you once wrote "conffile"
when you probably meant "configuration file which is not a conffile" and
this was causing somy of my confusion. Sorry for this!
--
Stefan Gybas
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 12:44:17PM +0200, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> So if this update-inetd program modifies a conffile, I am not allowed to
> call it from my postinst? What's the reason for such a program then?
inetd.conf is _not_ a conffile. Actually, dpkg does not know about it at all:
[9:16pm] [E
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> In short, you may not automatically modify the conffile of another package,
> either from your postinst or from a program called from your postinst.
> [...]
> It's a very friendly solution, but later dpkg will ask them about upgrading
> configuration files they've never hea
On Sat, Jul 17, 1999 at 03:26:09PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Hess). I'd guess that Hamish generally approves...but unless I get at
> least one more second, I'm going to have to let these drop.
I second this proposal.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB (ex-VK3TYD).
CCs of replies from mailin
On Sat, Jul 17, 1999 at 08:08:36PM +0200, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Why is a program in the package allowed to change a conffile but not
> the postinst? The final result is the same: dpkg might ask if I want to
> replace the configuration file when I upgrade the package.
>
> I, for example, maintain g
On 17-Jul-99, 13:08 (CDT), Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > * the maintainer scripts should not alter the conffile of ANY package,
> > including the one the scripts belong to.
> >
> > * the program itself in the package may modify the conffiles of other
> >
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> * the maintainer scripts should not alter the conffile of ANY package,
> including the one the scripts belong to.
>
> * the program itself in the package may modify the conffiles of other
> packages (eg if the program is an editor or dotfiles-type package).
Why is a p
On Sun, Jul 11, 1999 at 08:39:18PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 11-Jul-99, 19:58 (CDT), Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 4.7.4. Sharing configuration files
> > --
> >
> > Only packages that are tagged _conflicting_ with each other may
>
On 11-Jul-99, 19:58 (CDT), Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 4.7.4. Sharing configuration files
> --
>
> Only packages that are tagged _conflicting_ with each other may
> specify the same file as `conffile'.
>
> A package may not modify
4.7.4. Sharing configuration files
--
Only packages that are tagged _conflicting_ with each other may
specify the same file as `conffile'.
A package may not modify a conffile of another package.
Perhaps this last line should be changed to indicat
18 matches
Mail list logo
