On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
The one I'm involved with is base-passwd; but it only doesn't use
debconf because I've been putting off dealing with figuring out how to
convert it over (since it ideally ought
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 12:27 +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
Prompting must be done by communicating through a program, such
as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration
Management
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 16:44 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Andrew McMillan and...@morphoss.com writes:
Here's an updated patch to apply the following wording:
Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
Prompting must be done by communicating through a
Andrew McMillan and...@morphoss.com writes:
That seems to be accepted by everyone, so I've pushed it to policy now.
I hope that's the right thing... Please tell me if I've done something
the wrong way, or whatever.
The Policy change is good. When adding it to the mainline, please also
add
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 10:27 +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
That seems to be accepted by everyone, so I've pushed it to policy now.
I hope that's the right thing... Please tell me if I've done something
the wrong way, or whatever.
It looks like you've modified the 3.8.1.0 changelog entry
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 23:43 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 10:27 +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
That seems to be accepted by everyone, so I've pushed it to policy now.
I hope that's the right thing... Please tell me if I've done something
the wrong way, or whatever.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
dpkg...
sean
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 20:26 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Management Specification, version 2 or higher, unless no such
interface is available when they are executed.
Should we require that non-essential packages depend on debconf if they're
going to do prompting? That
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 19. März 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
Prompting must be done by communicating through a program, such
as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration
Management
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org writes:
Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
Prompting must be done by communicating through a program, such
as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration
Management Specification, version
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 10:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Packages that are essential or that are dependencies of essential
packages may fall back on another prompting method if no such
interface is available when they are executed.
Since we're essentially saying that all packages
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:13:19AM +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 10:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Packages that are essential or that are dependencies of essential
packages may fall back on another prompting method if no such
interface is available when
Andrew McMillan and...@morphoss.com writes:
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 10:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Packages that are essential or that are dependencies of essential
packages may fall back on another prompting method if no such
interface is available when they are executed.
Since
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 13:59 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:13:19AM +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 10:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Packages that are essential or that are dependencies of essential
packages may fall back on another
Andrew McMillan and...@morphoss.com writes:
Here's an updated patch to apply the following wording:
Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
Prompting must be done by communicating through a program, such
as debconf, which conforms to the Debian
On Freitag, 20. März 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Here's an updated patch to apply the following wording:
Seconded.
me too.
(not quoted as this aint a GR. :-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Hi,
sadly this didden happen in 2003-2009, but I'd like this to become a reality
for our next release sometime in 2010 or hopefully not 2011 ;-)
Any takers? (To propose this as a release goal bringing this into policy.)
Sadly I'm too busy for this, but I thought I'd at least remark it.
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org writes:
sadly this didden happen in 2003-2009, but I'd like this to become a
reality for our next release sometime in 2010 or hopefully not 2011 ;-)
Any takers? (To propose this as a release goal bringing this into policy.)
This was one of the things that
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
I'm not sure how many of these were false positives, but I'm fairly sure
that at least some of them are real:
http://lintian.debian.org/tags/read-in-maintainer-script.html
Should
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:46:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org writes:
sadly this didden happen in 2003-2009, but I'd like this to become a
reality for our next release sometime in 2010 or hopefully not 2011 ;-)
Any takers? (To propose this as a
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 14:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm not sure how many of these were false positives, but I'm fairly sure
that at least some of them are real:
http://lintian.debian.org/tags/read-in-maintainer-script.html
Not all that many, and some will be false positives. I think
Andrew McMillan and...@morphoss.com writes:
The current relevant text is:
Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
Prompting should be done by communicating through a program,
such as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:46:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org writes:
sadly this didden happen in 2003-2009, but I'd like this to become a
reality for our next release sometime in 2010 or
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 08:26:54PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The only other thing that I'm not sure about is what to do about preinst
scripts. Are we requiring debconf for preinst prompting (and hence
requiring a Pre-Depends) for non-essential packages?
I think we should be requiring it.
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 08:26:54PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The only other thing that I'm not sure about is what to do about
preinst scripts. Are we requiring debconf for preinst prompting (and
hence requiring a Pre-Depends) for non-essential
On Wed, Mar 18 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
ucf has code to fall back to using prompting to the console if
debconf is not available. Of course, this fails if the installation is
being run from a GUI, with the real tty buried.
On Wed, Mar 18 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
The only other thing that I'm not sure about is what to do about preinst
scripts. Are we requiring debconf for preinst prompting (and hence
requiring a Pre-Depends) for non-essential packages?
Why should debconf be treated any differently
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@acm.org writes:
Also, there is the funny case of config scripts; these are run
even before preinst, and before any pre-dependencies are installed. And
yet, these scripts are often used to prompt using debconf; they must be
no-ops if debconf is not yet
28 matches
Mail list logo
