On 09-10-14 02:17, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014, Paul Gevers wrote:
Thanks for the careful response. And no, as mentioned above, I didn't
mean to use dpkg-statoverride itself. dbconfig-common uses debconf and
ufc to manage the configuration files. However,
On 07-10-14 19:56, Paul Gevers wrote:
I am trying to come up with a patch against dpkg-statoverride that sets
the ownership and permissions upon creation, but not upon updates.
OOPS, what a stupid mistake to type. I meant dbconfig-common in the line
above.
@ Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
Thanks
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014, Paul Gevers wrote:
Thanks for the careful response. And no, as mentioned above, I didn't
mean to use dpkg-statoverride itself. dbconfig-common uses debconf and
ufc to manage the configuration files. However, dbconfig-common checks
with dpkg-statoverride if the
On 07-10-14 15:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
Also I don't see in your references an explanation from anyone as to
why dbconfig-common does this.
I you mean with why: why is it implemented this way than that is
exactly the question that I am asking myself looking at the code, if you
mean why does
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014, Paul Gevers wrote:
I am trying to come up with a patch against dpkg-statoverride that sets
the ownership and permissions upon creation, but not upon updates.
This really doesn't look like a good idea. In fact, it may well introduce
very confusing and likely dangerous
5 matches
Mail list logo
