Christian Franke wrote:
Jon Turney wrote:
On 26/06/2022 17:33, Christian Franke wrote:
...
This patch adds the missing functionality to run the pre-install
hook. It is limited to /etc/preremove/0p_* because there is possibly
no use case for /etc/preremove/zp_*.
Thanks.
I'm not sure what
On 29/06/2022 16:36, Hamish McIntyre-Bhatty wrote:
On 31/12/2021 10:00, Marco Atzeri wrote:
Attached patch moves "default" from 3.6 to 3.9
Additional changes:
Remove 3.5 from all
Change future to 3.10
Other point:
As 3.5 was never reall deployed, I think we can remove it from the
On 29/06/2022 16:46, Marco Atzeri wrote:
On 29.06.2022 17:36, Hamish McIntyre-Bhatty wrote:
On 31/12/2021 10:00, Marco Atzeri wrote:
Attached patch moves "default" from 3.6 to 3.9
Additional changes:
Remove 3.5 from all
Change future to 3.10
Other point:
As 3.5 was never reall
On 29.06.2022 17:36, Hamish McIntyre-Bhatty wrote:
On 31/12/2021 10:00, Marco Atzeri wrote:
Attached patch moves "default" from 3.6 to 3.9
Additional changes:
Remove 3.5 from all
Change future to 3.10
Other point:
As 3.5 was never reall deployed, I think we can remove it from the
On 31/12/2021 10:00, Marco Atzeri wrote:
Attached patch moves "default" from 3.6 to 3.9
Additional changes:
Remove 3.5 from all
Change future to 3.10
Other point:
As 3.5 was never reall deployed, I think we can remove it from the
distibution.
As we have a lot of python3-* is obsoleded
Jon Turney wrote:
On 26/06/2022 17:33, Christian Franke wrote:
Use case: I ITP etckeeper (https://etckeeper.branchable.com/) which I
frequently use on Debian. For fully automatic operation, it requires
pre-install and post-install hooks, e.g:
/etc/preremove/0p_000_etckeeper_pre-install.sh
On 26/06/2022 17:33, Christian Franke wrote:
Use case: I ITP etckeeper (https://etckeeper.branchable.com/) which I
frequently use on Debian. For fully automatic operation, it requires
pre-install and post-install hooks, e.g:
/etc/preremove/0p_000_etckeeper_pre-install.sh
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 09:55:10AM +0200, Christian Franke wrote:
> Christian Franke wrote:
> > Adam Dinwoodie wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > I'm also vaguely pondering whether it's worth adding git as a
> > > dependency. That's not strictly right, since etckeeper doesn't *need*
> > > git, but it's
Christian Franke wrote:
Adam Dinwoodie wrote:
...
I'm also vaguely pondering whether it's worth adding git as a
dependency. That's not strictly right, since etckeeper doesn't *need*
git, but it's going to be the use case for 99.9% of users, and in the
absence of Cygwin having a "recommends"
