Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:26:55PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will only overwrite the existing versions if they have not been modified or the user requests it. and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be upgraded? if so, mv them to the proper location in /var. same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files. But that's a policy violation (13.3) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files. But that's a policy violation (13.3) Oh, I'd better fix it then :) -- Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams - Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /etc/ question
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 03:03:08PM +0100, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote: That's what I read in one of your previous message and it made sense to me. Then Henrique argued that it was a bad idea. [...] Perhaps better: copy it in the postinst, remove the old version in the postinst. Then if any problems arise, the original version will still be present. BAD idea. This will defeat the conffile change detection engine in dpkg, and will cause problems in some cases. Don't do that. Did he just say that because of the typo ? s/postinst/preinst ? I'm sure it was; copying it in the preinst will allow dpkg to do its work. But remember someone else's advice: copy iff old conffile exists and new conffile doesn't. It's probably not a disaster if the upgrade bombs and the new conffile is left in place; you may not even need to worry about error unwinding. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will only
overwrite the existing versions if they have not been modified or the user
requests it.
and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install
them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be
upgraded? if so, mv them to the proper location in /var.
same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files.
But that's a policy violation (13.3)
What ppp does with /etc/{ppp/peers,chatscripts}/provider is not a policy
violation.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be upgraded? if so, mv them to the proper location in /var. same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files. But that's a policy violation (13.3) No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files". Please read that section again. This is, indeed, the best way to handle such situations. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will only
overwrite the existing versions if they have not been modified or the user
requests it.
and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install
them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be
upgraded? if so, mv them to the proper location in /var.
same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files.
But that's a policy violation (13.3)
What ppp does with /etc/{ppp/peers,chatscripts}/provider is not a policy
violation.
Maybe you misunderstood what I was referring to... of course changing or
messing with them isn't, but generating/installing them from e.g.
/usr/share/doc/foo/examples is a violation, according to 13.3.
It does not violate 13.3 because at the time the package is newly installed,
/usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/* exists.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be upgraded? if so, mv them to the proper location in /var. same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files. But that's a policy violation (13.3) No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files". Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know. Please read that section again. Did you? 13.3 isn't the config file policy, it's the /usr/share/doc policy. I interpret the last paragraph as forbidding what he was saying, provided a postinst script qualifies as "any program". -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Josip Rodin wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:23:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: It does not violate 13.3 because at the time the package is newly installed, /usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/* exists. ...so the system administrator won't get a chance to delete them and won't cause the program (the script) to break. That's the rationale behind that policy section, it seems. Plausible argument, but I seem to recall discussions of scenarios where the sysadmin wants /usr/share/doc so un-badly that it will never exist and will never be installed, e.g. by using some kind of dpkg feature to avoid installation of these directories. Can't hurt to be prepared for that kind of thing? Maybe policy should be clarified here whether maintainer scripts need apply or not... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files". Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know. Please read that section again. Did you? 13.3 isn't the config file policy, it's the /usr/share/doc policy. I interpret the last paragraph as forbidding what he was saying, provided a postinst script qualifies as "any program". VERY ANGRY RANT Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!? /VERY ANGRY RANT Mike. -- Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Contentsofsignaturemaysettleduringshipping. - Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files". Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know. Please read that section again. Did you? 13.3 isn't the config file policy, it's the /usr/share/doc policy. I interpret the last paragraph as forbidding what he was saying, provided a postinst script qualifies as "any program". VERY ANGRY RANT Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!? /VERY ANGRY RANT That wasn't a reply to you... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:37:40PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: VERY ANGRY RANT Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!? /VERY ANGRY RANT That wasn't a reply to you... I dont care. I brought up the point, and you said it was against policy. go fucking read your mentors folder. Mike. -- Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Trees moving back and forth make the wind blow. - Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:37:40PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: VERY ANGRY RANT Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!? /VERY ANGRY RANT That wasn't a reply to you... I dont care. I brought up the point, and you said it was against policy. I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilbey was talking about config files in doc/. It didn't have anything to do with anything *you* said, but what he said, and so it wasn't a reply to you. Simple as that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:32:21PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: It does not violate 13.3 because at the time the package is newly installed, /usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/* exists. ...so the system administrator won't get a chance to delete them and won't cause the program (the script) to break. That's the rationale behind that policy section, it seems. Plausible argument, but I seem to recall discussions of scenarios where the sysadmin wants /usr/share/doc so un-badly that it will never exist and will never be installed, e.g. by using some kind of dpkg feature to avoid installation of these directories. Can't hurt to be prepared for that kind of thing? Maybe policy should be clarified here whether maintainer scripts need apply or not... It seems to me that it would be overzealous to worry about that now... creating a special /usr/share/ppp directory (or whatever) just for this purpose, and linking the files in doc/ppp/examples to these. We can do it when (or if) dpkg starts supports exclusion of directories on installation. -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files". Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know. Please read that section again. Did you? 13.3 isn't the config file policy, it's the /usr/share/doc policy. I interpret the last paragraph as forbidding what he was saying, provided a postinst script qualifies as "any program". I now understand what you are saying, and have submitted a proposal to -policy about this, cc'd to this list. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:33:25AM +1300, Michael Beattie wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files". Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know. VERY ANGRY RANT Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!? /VERY ANGRY RANT No, he misunderstood me, not you. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: Plausible argument, but I seem to recall discussions of scenarios where the sysadmin wants /usr/share/doc so un-badly that it will never exist and will never be installed, e.g. by using some kind of dpkg feature to avoid installation of these directories. Can't hurt to be prepared for that kind of thing? Maybe policy should be clarified here whether maintainer scripts need apply or not... It seems to me that it would be overzealous to worry about that now... creating a special /usr/share/ppp directory (or whatever) just for this purpose, and linking the files in doc/ppp/examples to these. We can do it when (or if) dpkg starts supports exclusion of directories on installation. But when that happens, there may be a lot of work to do. Good for new packages to be upgrade-ready. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilbey was talking about config files in doc/. It didn't have anything to do with anything *you* said, but what he said, and so it wasn't a reply to you. Simple as that. Whereas, in reality, I was talking about copying an example configuration file from doc to its proper location. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilbey was talking about config files in doc/. It didn't have anything to do with anything *you* said, but what he said, and so it wasn't a reply to you. Simple as that. Beg to differ.. Why? You said to copy the files from doc and to where they belong, nowhere did you say that the config files would stay in doc or anything. Then I pointed at the doc part of policy, and I got a reply not-from-you that said something about treating them as config files when I was talking about /usr/share/doc. So the reply wasn't directed at you, isn't that clear enough? Typically my remarks can be interpreted in many negative ways, but I don't quite see how that mail can be interpreted as targeting *you*, especially when I said that it didn't, and who it did target, whether I'm mistaken in what I said or not. This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:10:25PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway... no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone? -- Brian Russo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian/GNU Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org LPSG "member"[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lpsg.org -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilbey was talking about config files in doc/. It didn't have anything to do with anything *you* said, but what he said, and so it wasn't a reply to you. Simple as that. Whereas, in reality, I was talking about copying an example configuration file from doc to its proper location. OK, but that certainly wasn't very clear from "treated as configuration files"... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:15:59AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote: This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway... no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone? There ain't no such thing as free popcorn ;( -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#87711: [PROPOSAL] Clarification of example configuration files
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.5.2.0 Severity: wishlist [Following from a thread on -mentors] The question: can you have a default configuration file in /usr/share/doc which is copied by the postinst to /etc if it does not yet exist? On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: Maybe you misunderstood what I was referring to... of course changing or messing with them isn't, but generating/installing them from e.g. /usr/share/doc/foo/examples is a violation, according to 13.3. Ah, you're right. 13.3 and 11.7.3 contradict over this point: 13.3 does not permit accessing it from a program, whereas 11.7.3 specifically suggests this course of action. I would like to suggest the following resolution: A common practice is to create a script called `package-configure' and have the package's `postinst' call it if and only if the configuration file does not already exist. In certain cases it is useful for there to be an example or template file which the - maintainer scripts use. Such files should be in `/usr/share/doc' if - they are examples or `/usr/lib' if they are templates, and should be - perfectly ordinary `dpkg'-handled files (_not_ `conffiles'). + maintainer scripts use. Such files should be in + `/usr/share/package' or `/usr/lib/package', with a symbolic + link from `/usr/share/doc/package/examples' if they are + examples, and should be perfectly ordinary `dpkg'-handled files + (_not_ `conffiles'). The reason I'm suggesting this is that there is talk of dpkg being able to selectively ignore (not install) certain directory trees. Now, if someone decides to ignore /usr/share/doc, the original method will break, but this one will still work. And the decision whether to use /usr/share or /usr/lib is probably not about templates, but about whether the package is arch-indep or not, as per FHS. I'm not convinced that this is the right thing to do, though; what do people think? Please keep the discussion to the BTS only, which is automatically copied to -policy, so that this doesn't get discussed on three mailing lists. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:21:41PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:15:59AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote: This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway... no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone? There ain't no such thing as free popcorn ;( This popping corn is available under the terms of the Free Food License (FFL). You may redistribute this food (cooked or uncooked), provided that provisions are made for preservation of the food, without compensation or fee to the originator. You are encouraged to send the originator cookies or similar sweets, however this is not required. hm, DFSG-free ? -- Brian Russo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian/GNU Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org LPSG "member"[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lpsg.org -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:33:55AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote: This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway... no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone? There ain't no such thing as free popcorn ;( This popping corn is available under the terms of the Free Food License (FFL). You may redistribute this food (cooked or uncooked), provided that provisions are made for preservation of the food, without compensation or fee to the originator. You are encouraged to send the originator cookies or similar sweets, however this is not required. hm, DFSG-free ? I guess so... but the inherent problem with good popcorn is that, unlike good software, you're inclined NOT to share it. :) -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:18:39PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilbey was talking about config files in doc/. It didn't have anything to do with anything *you* said, but what he said, and so it wasn't a reply to you. Simple as that. Whereas, in reality, I was talking about copying an example configuration file from doc to its proper location. OK, but that certainly wasn't very clear from "treated as configuration files"... My humble apologies :-/ Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Adopting a package
Hi I am a little new at this and confused by the documentation on the bug track page. How do I go about adopting a package that is up for adoption? I believe I have to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] but what do I use in the subject? Just a little confused by these options. OIf you are going to adopt a package, retitle its bug to replace `O' with `ITA', in order for other people to know the package is being adopted and to prevent its automatic removal from the archive. To actually adopt the package, upload it with your name in its Maintainer: field, and close this bug once the package has been installed. RFAIf you are going to adopt a package, retitle its bug to replace `RFA' with `ITA', in order for other people to know the package is being adopted and to prevent its automatic removal from the archive. To actually adopt the package, upload it with your name in its Maintainer: field, and close this bug once the package has been installed. Thanks Sean # # Sean Preston [EMAIL PROTECTED] # GNU/Linux, the OS of choice -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Adopting a package
On 26-Feb-2001 Sean Preston wrote: Hi I am a little new at this and confused by the documentation on the bug track page. How do I go about adopting a package that is up for adoption? I believe I have to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] but what do I use in the subject? Just a little confused by these options. go to http://bugs.debian.org, read the developer reference. When you are doing the work, but not ready to upload, mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] a retitle command. When you actually have the package ready, in your changelog, add a line like: * adopted package, Closes: #1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:08:07PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: It seems to me that it would be overzealous to worry about that now... creating a special /usr/share/ppp directory (or whatever) just for this purpose, and linking the files in doc/ppp/examples to these. We can do it when (or if) dpkg starts supports exclusion of directories on installation. But when that happens, there may be a lot of work to do. Good for new packages to be upgrade-ready. It doesn't make sense to plan ahead for a feature that may or may not ever exist. Since you don't know how it will be implemented, you would be guessing as to how to make your package support it. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:50:58PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: It seems to me that it would be overzealous to worry about that now... creating a special /usr/share/ppp directory (or whatever) just for this purpose, and linking the files in doc/ppp/examples to these. We can do it when (or if) dpkg starts supports exclusion of directories on installation. But when that happens, there may be a lot of work to do. Good for new packages to be upgrade-ready. It doesn't make sense to plan ahead for a feature that may or may not ever exist. Since you don't know how it will be implemented, you would be guessing as to how to make your package support it. This scenario turns out to have already happened in some places. At the very least, it would be good for packages to not rely on the existence of /usr/share/doc. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:19:54PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:33:55AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote: This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway... no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone? There ain't no such thing as free popcorn ;( This popping corn is available under the terms of the Free Food License (FFL). You may redistribute this food (cooked or uncooked), provided that provisions are made for preservation of the food, without compensation or fee to the originator. You are encouraged to send the originator cookies or similar sweets, however this is not required. hm, DFSG-free ? I guess so... but the inherent problem with good popcorn is that, unlike good software, you're inclined NOT to share it. :) So, ... Is it OK if I include /var/lib/crafty in debian/conffiles ? Do I have to include every file or just /var/lib/crafty/* ? -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Eric VAN BUGGENHAUT [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:26:55PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will only overwrite the existing versions if they have not been modified or the user requests it. and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be upgraded? if so, mv them to the proper location in /var. same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files. But that's a policy violation (13.3)
Re: /etc/ question
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 03:03:08PM +0100, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote: That's what I read in one of your previous message and it made sense to me. Then Henrique argued that it was a bad idea. [...] Perhaps better: copy it in the postinst, remove the old version in the postinst. Then if any problems arise, the original version will still be present. BAD idea. This will defeat the conffile change detection engine in dpkg, and will cause problems in some cases. Don't do that. Did he just say that because of the typo ? s/postinst/preinst ? I'm sure it was; copying it in the preinst will allow dpkg to do its work. But remember someone else's advice: copy iff old conffile exists and new conffile doesn't. It's probably not a disaster if the upgrade bombs and the new conffile is left in place; you may not even need to worry about error unwinding. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will
only
overwrite the existing versions if they have not been modified or the user
requests it.
and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install
them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be
upgraded? if so, mv them to the proper location in /var.
same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files.
But that's a policy violation (13.3)
What ppp does with /etc/{ppp/peers,chatscripts}/provider is not a policy
violation.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be upgraded? if so, mv them to the proper location in /var. same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files. But that's a policy violation (13.3) No it isn't. They are being treated as configuration files. Please read that section again. This is, indeed, the best way to handle such situations. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they
will only
overwrite the existing versions if they have not been modified or the
user
requests it.
and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install
them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be
upgraded? if so, mv them to the proper location in /var.
same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files.
But that's a policy violation (13.3)
What ppp does with /etc/{ppp/peers,chatscripts}/provider is not a policy
violation.
Maybe you misunderstood what I was referring to... of course changing or
messing with them isn't, but generating/installing them from e.g.
/usr/share/doc/foo/examples is a violation, according to 13.3.
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they
will only
overwrite the existing versions if they have not been modified or the
user
requests it.
and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install
them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be
upgraded? if so, mv them to the proper location in /var.
same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files.
But that's a policy violation (13.3)
What ppp does with /etc/{ppp/peers,chatscripts}/provider is not a policy
violation.
Maybe you misunderstood what I was referring to... of course changing or
messing with them isn't, but generating/installing them from e.g.
/usr/share/doc/foo/examples is a violation, according to 13.3.
It does not violate 13.3 because at the time the package is newly installed,
/usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/* exists.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:23:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they
will only
overwrite the existing versions if they have not been modified or
the user
requests it.
and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should
install
them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should
be
upgraded? if so, mv them to the proper location in /var.
same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files.
But that's a policy violation (13.3)
What ppp does with /etc/{ppp/peers,chatscripts}/provider is not a policy
violation.
Maybe you misunderstood what I was referring to... of course changing or
messing with them isn't, but generating/installing them from e.g.
/usr/share/doc/foo/examples is a violation, according to 13.3.
It does not violate 13.3 because at the time the package is newly installed,
/usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/* exists.
...so the system administrator won't get a chance to delete them and won't
cause the program (the script) to break. That's the rationale behind that
policy section, it seems.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be upgraded? if so, mv them to the proper location in /var. same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files. But that's a policy violation (13.3) No it isn't. They are being treated as configuration files. Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know. Please read that section again. Did you? 13.3 isn't the config file policy, it's the /usr/share/doc policy. I interpret the last paragraph as forbidding what he was saying, provided a postinst script qualifies as any program.
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
Maybe you misunderstood what I was referring to... of course changing or messing with them isn't, but generating/installing them from e.g. /usr/share/doc/foo/examples is a violation, according to 13.3. Files in /usr/share/doc' should not be referenced by any program, and the system administrator should be able to delete them without causing any programs to break. Only thing I can see that resembles anything to do with this, is the above. since the documentation is installed on upgrade, and postinst uses the files here to create conffiles as needed, then there is no problem. only problem I can see is a dpkg --configure call by the user. if the script checks the doc copies exist first, there is again, no problem. Mike. -- Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Contentsofsignaturemaysettleduringshipping. - Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out!
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Josip Rodin wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:23:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: It does not violate 13.3 because at the time the package is newly installed, /usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/* exists. ...so the system administrator won't get a chance to delete them and won't cause the program (the script) to break. That's the rationale behind that policy section, it seems. Plausible argument, but I seem to recall discussions of scenarios where the sysadmin wants /usr/share/doc so un-badly that it will never exist and will never be installed, e.g. by using some kind of dpkg feature to avoid installation of these directories. Can't hurt to be prepared for that kind of thing? Maybe policy should be clarified here whether maintainer scripts need apply or not...
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: No it isn't. They are being treated as configuration files. Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know. Please read that section again. Did you? 13.3 isn't the config file policy, it's the /usr/share/doc policy. I interpret the last paragraph as forbidding what he was saying, provided a postinst script qualifies as any program. VERY ANGRY RANT Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!? /VERY ANGRY RANT Mike. -- Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Contentsofsignaturemaysettleduringshipping. - Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out!
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: No it isn't. They are being treated as configuration files. Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know. Please read that section again. Did you? 13.3 isn't the config file policy, it's the /usr/share/doc policy. I interpret the last paragraph as forbidding what he was saying, provided a postinst script qualifies as any program. VERY ANGRY RANT Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!? /VERY ANGRY RANT That wasn't a reply to you...
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:37:40PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: VERY ANGRY RANT Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!? /VERY ANGRY RANT That wasn't a reply to you... I dont care. I brought up the point, and you said it was against policy. go fucking read your mentors folder. Mike. -- Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Trees moving back and forth make the wind blow. - Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out!
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:37:40PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: VERY ANGRY RANT Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!? /VERY ANGRY RANT That wasn't a reply to you... I dont care. I brought up the point, and you said it was against policy. I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilbey was talking about config files in doc/. It didn't have anything to do with anything *you* said, but what he said, and so it wasn't a reply to you. Simple as that.
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:32:21PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: It does not violate 13.3 because at the time the package is newly installed, /usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/* exists. ...so the system administrator won't get a chance to delete them and won't cause the program (the script) to break. That's the rationale behind that policy section, it seems. Plausible argument, but I seem to recall discussions of scenarios where the sysadmin wants /usr/share/doc so un-badly that it will never exist and will never be installed, e.g. by using some kind of dpkg feature to avoid installation of these directories. Can't hurt to be prepared for that kind of thing? Maybe policy should be clarified here whether maintainer scripts need apply or not... It seems to me that it would be overzealous to worry about that now... creating a special /usr/share/ppp directory (or whatever) just for this purpose, and linking the files in doc/ppp/examples to these. We can do it when (or if) dpkg starts supports exclusion of directories on installation. -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilbey was talking about config files in doc/. It didn't have anything to do with anything *you* said, but what he said, and so it wasn't a reply to you. Simple as that. Beg to differ.. My initial mail. Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your reply: Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike. -- Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - SirDibos Culus: are you awake? Culus no - Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out!
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: No it isn't. They are being treated as configuration files. Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know. Please read that section again. Did you? 13.3 isn't the config file policy, it's the /usr/share/doc policy. I interpret the last paragraph as forbidding what he was saying, provided a postinst script qualifies as any program. I now understand what you are saying, and have submitted a proposal to -policy about this, cc'd to this list. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Bug#87711: [PROPOSAL] Clarification of example configuration files
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.5.2.0 Severity: wishlist [Following from a thread on -mentors] The question: can you have a default configuration file in /usr/share/doc which is copied by the postinst to /etc if it does not yet exist? On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: Maybe you misunderstood what I was referring to... of course changing or messing with them isn't, but generating/installing them from e.g. /usr/share/doc/foo/examples is a violation, according to 13.3. Ah, you're right. 13.3 and 11.7.3 contradict over this point: 13.3 does not permit accessing it from a program, whereas 11.7.3 specifically suggests this course of action. I would like to suggest the following resolution: A common practice is to create a script called `package-configure' and have the package's `postinst' call it if and only if the configuration file does not already exist. In certain cases it is useful for there to be an example or template file which the - maintainer scripts use. Such files should be in `/usr/share/doc' if - they are examples or `/usr/lib' if they are templates, and should be - perfectly ordinary `dpkg'-handled files (_not_ `conffiles'). + maintainer scripts use. Such files should be in + `/usr/share/package' or `/usr/lib/package', with a symbolic + link from `/usr/share/doc/package/examples' if they are + examples, and should be perfectly ordinary `dpkg'-handled files + (_not_ `conffiles'). The reason I'm suggesting this is that there is talk of dpkg being able to selectively ignore (not install) certain directory trees. Now, if someone decides to ignore /usr/share/doc, the original method will break, but this one will still work. And the decision whether to use /usr/share or /usr/lib is probably not about templates, but about whether the package is arch-indep or not, as per FHS. I'm not convinced that this is the right thing to do, though; what do people think? Please keep the discussion to the BTS only, which is automatically copied to -policy, so that this doesn't get discussed on three mailing lists. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:33:25AM +1300, Michael Beattie wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: No it isn't. They are being treated as configuration files. Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I know. VERY ANGRY RANT Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!? /VERY ANGRY RANT No, he misunderstood me, not you. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: Plausible argument, but I seem to recall discussions of scenarios where the sysadmin wants /usr/share/doc so un-badly that it will never exist and will never be installed, e.g. by using some kind of dpkg feature to avoid installation of these directories. Can't hurt to be prepared for that kind of thing? Maybe policy should be clarified here whether maintainer scripts need apply or not... It seems to me that it would be overzealous to worry about that now... creating a special /usr/share/ppp directory (or whatever) just for this purpose, and linking the files in doc/ppp/examples to these. We can do it when (or if) dpkg starts supports exclusion of directories on installation. But when that happens, there may be a lot of work to do. Good for new packages to be upgrade-ready. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilbey was talking about config files in doc/. It didn't have anything to do with anything *you* said, but what he said, and so it wasn't a reply to you. Simple as that. Whereas, in reality, I was talking about copying an example configuration file from doc to its proper location. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilbey was talking about config files in doc/. It didn't have anything to do with anything *you* said, but what he said, and so it wasn't a reply to you. Simple as that. Beg to differ.. Why? You said to copy the files from doc and to where they belong, nowhere did you say that the config files would stay in doc or anything. Then I pointed at the doc part of policy, and I got a reply not-from-you that said something about treating them as config files when I was talking about /usr/share/doc. So the reply wasn't directed at you, isn't that clear enough? Typically my remarks can be interpreted in many negative ways, but I don't quite see how that mail can be interpreted as targeting *you*, especially when I said that it didn't, and who it did target, whether I'm mistaken in what I said or not. This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway...
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:10:25PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway... no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone? -- Brian Russo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian/GNU Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org LPSG member[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lpsg.org -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilbey was talking about config files in doc/. It didn't have anything to do with anything *you* said, but what he said, and so it wasn't a reply to you. Simple as that. Whereas, in reality, I was talking about copying an example configuration file from doc to its proper location. OK, but that certainly wasn't very clear from treated as configuration files...
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:15:59AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote: This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway... no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone? There ain't no such thing as free popcorn ;( -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:33:55AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote: This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway... no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone? There ain't no such thing as free popcorn ;( This popping corn is available under the terms of the Free Food License (FFL). You may redistribute this food (cooked or uncooked), provided that provisions are made for preservation of the food, without compensation or fee to the originator. You are encouraged to send the originator cookies or similar sweets, however this is not required. hm, DFSG-free ? I guess so... but the inherent problem with good popcorn is that, unlike good software, you're inclined NOT to share it. :) -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: Package checking
samth# lintian --version Lintian v1.20.6 samth# lintian -i uf-view_1.2-2_i386.changes W: uf-view source: newer-standards-version 3.5.2.0 I presume this is a lintian bug. Right? I need to add new policy to the list of known policy. However, i only do this when lintian fully understands new policies.
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:18:39PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the sufficiently argumentative (me): Julian Gilbey was talking about config files in doc/. It didn't have anything to do with anything *you* said, but what he said, and so it wasn't a reply to you. Simple as that. Whereas, in reality, I was talking about copying an example configuration file from doc to its proper location. OK, but that certainly wasn't very clear from treated as configuration files... My humble apologies :-/ Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Adopting a package
Hi I am a little new at this and confused by the documentation on the bug track page. How do I go about adopting a package that is up for adoption? I believe I have to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] but what do I use in the subject? Just a little confused by these options. OIf you are going to adopt a package, retitle its bug to replace `O' with `ITA', in order for other people to know the package is being adopted and to prevent its automatic removal from the archive. To actually adopt the package, upload it with your name in its Maintainer: field, and close this bug once the package has been installed. RFAIf you are going to adopt a package, retitle its bug to replace `RFA' with `ITA', in order for other people to know the package is being adopted and to prevent its automatic removal from the archive. To actually adopt the package, upload it with your name in its Maintainer: field, and close this bug once the package has been installed. Thanks Sean # # Sean Preston [EMAIL PROTECTED] # GNU/Linux, the OS of choice
RE: Adopting a package
On 26-Feb-2001 Sean Preston wrote: Hi I am a little new at this and confused by the documentation on the bug track page. How do I go about adopting a package that is up for adoption? I believe I have to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] but what do I use in the subject? Just a little confused by these options. go to http://bugs.debian.org, read the developer reference. When you are doing the work, but not ready to upload, mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] a retitle command. When you actually have the package ready, in your changelog, add a line like: * adopted package, Closes: #1
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:08:07PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: It seems to me that it would be overzealous to worry about that now... creating a special /usr/share/ppp directory (or whatever) just for this purpose, and linking the files in doc/ppp/examples to these. We can do it when (or if) dpkg starts supports exclusion of directories on installation. But when that happens, there may be a lot of work to do. Good for new packages to be upgrade-ready. It doesn't make sense to plan ahead for a feature that may or may not ever exist. Since you don't know how it will be implemented, you would be guessing as to how to make your package support it. -- - mdz
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:50:58PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: It seems to me that it would be overzealous to worry about that now... creating a special /usr/share/ppp directory (or whatever) just for this purpose, and linking the files in doc/ppp/examples to these. We can do it when (or if) dpkg starts supports exclusion of directories on installation. But when that happens, there may be a lot of work to do. Good for new packages to be upgrade-ready. It doesn't make sense to plan ahead for a feature that may or may not ever exist. Since you don't know how it will be implemented, you would be guessing as to how to make your package support it. This scenario turns out to have already happened in some places. At the very least, it would be good for packages to not rely on the existence of /usr/share/doc. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Re: keeping files from one version to the other.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:19:54PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:33:55AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote: This isn't a very constructive thing to argue anyway... no, but it is amusing, popcorn anyone? There ain't no such thing as free popcorn ;( This popping corn is available under the terms of the Free Food License (FFL). You may redistribute this food (cooked or uncooked), provided that provisions are made for preservation of the food, without compensation or fee to the originator. You are encouraged to send the originator cookies or similar sweets, however this is not required. hm, DFSG-free ? I guess so... but the inherent problem with good popcorn is that, unlike good software, you're inclined NOT to share it. :) So, ... Is it OK if I include /var/lib/crafty in debian/conffiles ? Do I have to include every file or just /var/lib/crafty/* ? -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Eric VAN BUGGENHAUT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
