tag 703022 pending
thanks
Le Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 08:38:56AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>
> I will commit this as a non-normative solution in the absence of comments in
> the next few days.
Comitted, thanks to everobody for your contribution.
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
-
Le Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 09:22:08AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > In the meantime, I propose to modify Appendix G by adding the following
> > sentence.
>
> > Do not attempt to divert a conffile, as dpkg does not
> > handle
> > it well.
>
> > I know that we
Charles Plessy writes:
> In the meantime, I propose to modify Appendix G by adding the following
> sentence.
> Do not attempt to divert a conffile, as dpkg does not handle
> it well.
> I know that we should not add contents to the appendices, but in that
> case it already contains a sim
Le Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 08:59:01AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > It should work way better than before, in part thanks the to the usage
> > and bug reporting from MIT, but as you say there's still some wrinkles,
> > which I plan on fixing for 1.
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Guillem Jover wrote:
> It should work way better than before, in part thanks the to the usage
> and bug reporting from MIT, but as you say there's still some wrinkles,
> which I plan on fixing for 1.17.x; in any case I'm always interested in
> any bug reports affecting the
Russ Allbery wrote:
>The last time I looked at this (which was several years ago), diverting
>conffiles had enough problems that it was tempting to just say that it
>didn't work reliably. I wonder if we should explicitly recommend against
>diverting conffiles, or if some of those problems have bee
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 10:34:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Torsten Jerzembeck writes:
> > The example provided in Appendix G of the DPM regarding the removal of
> > diversions doesn't work if the file diverted is a conffile. This is
> > due to the fact that conffiles are not removed during a "rem
On 14.03.2013 17:34, Russ Allbery wrote:
The last time I looked at this (which was several years ago),
diverting
conffiles had enough problems that it was tempting to just say that
it
didn't work reliably. I wonder if we should explicitly recommend
against
diverting conffiles, or if some of th
Torsten Jerzembeck writes:
> The example provided in Appendix G of the DPM regarding the removal of
> diversions doesn't work if the file diverted is a conffile. This is
> due to the fact that conffiles are not removed during a "remove", but
> but only during a "purge". As a "purge" implies a "re
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: minor
The example provided in Appendix G of the DPM regarding the removal of
diversions doesn't work if the file diverted is a conffile. This is
due to the fact that conffiles are not removed during a "remove", but
but only during a "purge". As a "
10 matches
Mail list logo
