On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 04:00:16PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Is there actually a good reason for the symlinks, which I am not
seeing? The best reason I have come up with so far is that it allows the
link to be renamed to a higher/lower number while still having the file
contents updated by dpkg.
On Aug 17, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, it looks like Ubuntu's debhelper has already done away with the
symlinks:
I do not feel very strongly about keeping symlinks for all packages,
but I think it's a bit late (like, two years late) to have second
toughts.
For this
* Filippo Giunchedi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 07:10:49PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
I'm getting bitten by this problem as well with openct. Is there no
clever way to detect if the previous version had the rules file, and
if not, install the symlink on upgrade as
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 07:10:49PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
I'm getting bitten by this problem as well with openct. Is there no
clever way to detect if the previous version had the rules file, and
if not, install the symlink on upgrade as well?
what about appending a version to
Marco d'Itri wrote:
With the symlinks, the best approach I've come up with for
postinst
scripts is for them to check for a flag file, create the symlink
and
touch the flag if the flag is missing. I'm not sure where to put
the
flag files, possibly somewhere under /var.
How
Marco d'Itri wrote:
With the symlinks, the best approach I've come up with for postinst
scripts is for them to check for a flag file, create the symlink and
touch the flag if the flag is missing. I'm not sure where to put the
flag files, possibly somewhere under /var.
How this would be
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
dh_installudev installs a #DEBHELPER# fragment that makes a symlink from
/etc/udev/package.rules to /etc/udev/rules.d/package.rules, but only if
the installation is brand new (ie. [ -z $2 ]). This is, AFAICS,
because an admin should be free to rm this symlink
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 01:34:57AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
How this would be best? The current practice of creating the symlinks
only when the package is installed for the first time (or upgraded to a
version which includes the symlink if it did not exist before) is much
simpler.
Well, it
On Apr 02, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On reviewing how these links are supposed to work, I don't understand
why these symlinks are used at all. If files were placed directly in
Because they allow changing the order in which files are processed,
which may be useful.
Or at least appeared
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 01:43:07AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Can you show some examples? When people ask about this I point them to
the eciadsl package which is quite simple:
Where does this come from? It certainly does not match the fragment
debhelper puts into my postinst.
/* Steinar */
--
On Apr 03, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it is not the current practice; the or upgraded to a version which
includes the symlink if it did not exist before is never implemented
anywhere.
Can you show some examples? When people ask about this I point them to
the eciadsl
Package: debhelper
Version: 5.0.26
Severity: normal
dh_installudev installs a #DEBHELPER# fragment that makes a symlink from
/etc/udev/package.rules to /etc/udev/rules.d/package.rules, but only if
the installation is brand new (ie. [ -z $2 ]). This is, AFAICS,
because an admin should be free to
12 matches
Mail list logo
