On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:28:33PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Yet another reasons for wanting to decouple installation and
configuration is if some hardware company (such as VA^H^H Emperor
Linux) wishes to ship Debian pre-installed on the system. In that
case, installation happens at
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 03:24:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:28:33PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Yet another reasons for wanting to decouple installation and
configuration is if some hardware company (such as VA^H^H Emperor
Linux) wishes to ship Debian
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:24PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
This upstream change makes no sense from a usability standpoint; this new
stunnel package would be pretty useless to me, and I wouldn't want to have it
automatically installed on my systems if I were using the previous,
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:49:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
If I ever add filtering to the notes debconf allows to be displayed,
notes that refer the user to README.Debian will be at the top of the
list to never be displayed.
Of course, I am much more likely to bow to the pressure of notes
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:18:33AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On a separate but related topic, I think a much better approach would
be to handle configuration as a step entirely separate from the
install phase. Let the install be entirely quiet, and let packages
have intelligent defaults.
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:06:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:18:33AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On a separate but related topic, I think a much better approach would
be to handle configuration as a step entirely separate from the
install phase. Let the
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 05:05:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The point of decoupling installation and configuration is to let the admin
choose which of these scenarios happen, instead of the distribution or
the maintainer. The first is appropriate if you're doing installs of many
systems
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 08:46:00AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 05:05:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The point of decoupling installation and configuration is to let the admin
choose which of these scenarios happen, instead of the distribution or
the maintainer. The
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 04:21:45PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
I will upload a stunnel4 package and a stunnel with Epoch tomorrow.
Excellent decision. :) Thank you.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The key to being a Southern
Debian GNU/Linux | Baptist:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:18:10AM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
On Friday 04 July 2003 01:52, Andrew Suffield wrote:
What do you propose ?
Do you think Debian must keep old version of stunnel (3.x) for
compatibility
Given how it sounds like upstream are completely incompetent and
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:49:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
If I ever add filtering to the notes debconf allows to be displayed,
notes that refer the user to README.Debian will be at the top of the
list to never be displayed.
Of course, I am much more likely to bow to the pressure of notes
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:18:33AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On a separate but related topic, I think a much better approach would
be to handle configuration as a step entirely separate from the
install phase. Let the install be entirely quiet, and let packages
have intelligent defaults.
Marc Singer wrote:
There is the related trouble that the only way to disable most
packages is to uninstall them. Sometimes, it is desirable to
temporarily disable a service without removing the binaries or
changing the executability of the init.d script.
Take a look at invoke-rc.d and its
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On a separate but related topic, I think a much better approach would
be to handle configuration as a step entirely separate from the
install phase. Let the install be entirely quiet, and let packages
have intelligent defaults. If the package absolutely must be
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:11:48AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On a separate but related topic, I think a much better approach would
be to handle configuration as a step entirely separate from the
install phase. Let the install be entirely quiet, and let packages
have
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:18:33AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
sometimes think Eric Troan really got this part of rpm's design right
(some 7 or 8 years ago) when he completely forbade any I/O between the
install scripts and the user at install time.
[...]
(And perhaps by removing this crutch,
On Friday 04 July 2003 05:59, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Yes, keep the two versions of stunnel is probably the right way to handle
this problem. Now the problem is that stunnel is uploaded in version 4 on
stunnel package. What is the correct way to reintroduce stunnel for
compatibility reasons
Hello,
First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
about debconf in debian-devel.
Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
more user friendly migration who did not break backwards compatibility.
My answer is that I
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf,
I will respect the DFSG [1] and add a debconf warning [2] in the
stunnel package.
[...]
[1] 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
As a
Hi.
Julien LEMOINE wrote:
First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
about debconf in debian-devel.
But then, the last one didn't favor your opinion.
Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
more user friendly migration who
Hi Sebastian!
You wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf,
I will respect the DFSG [1] and add a debconf warning [2] in the
stunnel package.
[...]
[1] 4. Our Priorities are
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
about debconf in debian-devel.
Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
more user friendly migration who did not break
Julien LEMOINE wrote:
Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf
It's a pity you ignore the express wishes of the author, and the consensus
on this list as to their use.
* To set up stunnel for server use, read the
/usr/share/doc/stunnel/README.Debian file.
If
On Thursday 03 July 2003 22:49, Joey Hess wrote:
Julien LEMOINE wrote:
Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf
It's a pity you ignore the express wishes of the author, and the consensus
on this list as to their use.
I ignore nothing and nobody, I read all reply
On Thursday 03 July 2003 21:36, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
about debconf in debian-devel.
Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have
Hi
On Thursday 03 July 2003 19:37, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Julien LEMOINE wrote:
Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
more user friendly migration who did not break backwards compatibility.
My answer is that I have no time to implement command line
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:06:26AM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
On Thursday 03 July 2003 21:36, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
about debconf in debian-devel.
On Friday 04 July 2003 01:52, Andrew Suffield wrote:
What do you propose ?
Do you think Debian must keep old version of stunnel (3.x) for
compatibility
Given how it sounds like upstream are completely incompetent and have
decided to gratuitously break compatibility, that sounds like a
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:10:32AM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
On Thursday 03 July 2003 19:37, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Julien LEMOINE wrote:
Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
more user friendly migration who did not break backwards compatibility.
29 matches
Mail list logo
