Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:12:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> In the case of adduser, there is a strong case for not doing deluser at
>>> *all* on purge, because it's impossible to ensure that there are no
>
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:01:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > This is something that I'd really like to see us sort out in policy,
> > since I think we should be able to describe consistent behavior with
> > regard to system users and package purging
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:12:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In the case of adduser, there is a strong case for not doing deluser at
> > *all* on purge, because it's impossible to ensure that there are no
> > off-line or remote resources referencing
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:44:38PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I ran some piuparts tests over etch on i386. I filed quite a lot of
> bugs, but there are some logs that still need reviewing. I WON'T REVIEW
> THEM MYSELF.
> Here is a list of packages that fail when all packages except essential
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This is something that I'd really like to see us sort out in policy,
> since I think we should be able to describe consistent behavior with
> regard to system users and package purging to our users.
What makes the most sense to me is to not delete the use
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:12:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This is something that I'd really like to see us sort out in policy,
>> since I think we should be able to describe consistent behavior with
>> regard to system users and package purging t
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:12:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Hmm, I would read policy in a way that since a package can not rely on
> >> its dependencies being present during purge, their pure absence alone
> >> should not be a valid reason to fail. If this on the other hand is a
> >> valid e
Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please detect the unconditional use of debconf, adduser, update-inetd,
> etc inside "purge" conditional or case, or at the top of a script,
> before conditionals or cases.
"etc." is going to be read as if it wasn't present unless someone spells
it out f
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:35:12PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
>> Hmm, I would read policy in a way that since a package can not rely on
>> its dependencies being present during purge, their pure absence alone
>> should not be a valid reason to fail
Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is at least true for the "debconf" errors; since "debconf is a
> cache", it isn't useful to fail when the cache has already been removed.
> I guess this is why some packages use:
>. /usr/share/debconf/confmodule || true
> They should really us
Your message dated Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:07:24 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line developer.php: bad handling of emails with Capital Letters
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not
Your message dated Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:07:24 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line developer.php: bad handling of emails with Capital Letters
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:59:30PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>I've been looking for bugs to fix in etch and have found one which looks
>easily fixable in an orphaned package. I'm not (yet) a DD, however.
>Would you like me to prepare and NMU and send it to my sponsor or you to
>upload, or put a
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:35:12PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 03:13:42PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > For the "adduser" errors, it might be reasonable to intentionally fail, as a
> > mechanism to alert the admin that "the user hasn't and can't be removed".
> > Sa
hi Matthew,
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:59:30PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> I've been looking for bugs to fix in etch and have found one which looks
> easily fixable in an orphaned package. I'm not (yet) a DD, however.
> Would you like me to prepare and NMU
Orphaned packages do have the QA gr
I've been looking for bugs to fix in etch and have found one which looks
easily fixable in an orphaned package. I'm not (yet) a DD, however.
Would you like me to prepare and NMU and send it to my sponsor or you to
upload, or put a patch on the BTS?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
http://www.matthew.ath.
Package: lintian
Severity: wishlist
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 03:13:42PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 08:07:27PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:44:38PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > Here is a list of packages that fail when all packages e
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 03:13:42PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> For the "adduser" errors, it might be reasonable to intentionally fail, as a
> mechanism to alert the admin that "the user hasn't and can't be removed".
> Same
> for update-inetd. Is that the intent?
Hmm, I would read policy in a
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 08:07:27PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:44:38PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Here is a list of packages that fail when all packages except essential
> > ones, apt and debfoster wxhere removed, but didn't fail when all
> > important&require
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:44:38PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Here is a list of packages that fail when all packages except essential
> ones, apt and debfoster wxhere removed, but didn't fail when all
> important&required packages were kept. This indicates a missing
> dependency on an important
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:31:32 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On dom, 2006-11-12 at 14:02 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I suggest that we specify tow headers: and SCM specific header,
>> XS-Vcs- where name is one keyword from a specified list (bzr,
>> cvs, svn, darcs, gi
Your message dated Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:42:10 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line www.debian.org: QA pages claim to be W3C-clean but are not
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not
dmin
phpsysinfo
powertweakd
powertweak-extra
shfs-utils
vserver-debiantools
zabbix-server-mysql
Logs for these packages are available on
http://ox.blop.info/bazaar/buildlogs/20061114.debconfucf/
Here is a list of packages that fail when all packages except essential
ones, apt and debfoster wxhere removed,
23 matches
Mail list logo