Russ Allbery wrote:
[...] my understanding is that, in prerm, you're already checking
that dash owns the diversion:
div=$(dpkg-divert --list $1)
if [ -n $div ] [ -z ${div%%*by dash} ]; then
distrib=${div% by dash}
distrib=${distrib##* to }
Raphael Geissert atom...@gmail.com writes:
I think it is fair to say that it is ok to remove a local diversion if
the user is saying that she/he wants dash to be /bin/sh. Not doing so
would even leave the diversion and debconf db in an inconsistent state.
So, Russ, do you agree that
On 28 April 2010 21:13, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Raphael Geissert atom...@gmail.com writes:
I think it is fair to say that it is ok to remove a local diversion if
the user is saying that she/he wants dash to be /bin/sh. Not doing so
would even leave the diversion and debconf db in
Raphael Geissert geiss...@debian.org writes:
One possible solution I can think about is to ignore/bypass the
package-uses-local-diversion check for now and later handle the issue
when bash is the one that has to divert /bin/sh.
I think it would be reasonable to just bail if a local diversion
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:43:28AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Gerrit Pape p...@dbnbgs.smarden.org writes:
Hi, to me this looks like false positives. With the current dash and
ash packages in squeeze:
The code handling the diversion in these scripts is years old, and I
never saw a local
Package: lintian
Version: 2.3.3
Hi, to me this looks like false positives. With the current dash and
ash packages in squeeze:
$ lintian /var/cache/apt/archives/dash_0.5.5.1-3_powerpc.deb
W: dash: spelling-error-in-changelog explicitely explicitly
W: dash: missing-debconf-dependency
E: dash:
Gerrit Pape p...@dbnbgs.smarden.org writes:
Hi, to me this looks like false positives. With the current dash and
ash packages in squeeze:
$ lintian /var/cache/apt/archives/dash_0.5.5.1-3_powerpc.deb
W: dash: spelling-error-in-changelog explicitely explicitly
W: dash:
7 matches
Mail list logo
