Bdale Garbee wrote:
>The following table summarizes pattern-matching default values:
>
>MembersDefault settings
>--
>Inclusion `--no-wildcards --anchored
>--no-w
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 10:36:20AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 07:02:15AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > > Debian still has to provide an upgrade path for users upgrading from
> > > Sarge.
> > > We cannot blindly break users scripts.
> >
> > Here, the only way seem
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:36 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Here, the only way seems to be putting an entry in NEWS.Debian (for
> > users script, ie things not under our control).
Good idea, Christian.
> In addition, I would suggest we reinstate the previous behaviour, but
> display a warning w
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 07:02:15AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Debian still has to provide an upgrade path for users upgrading from Sarge.
> > We cannot blindly break users scripts.
>
> Here, the only way seems to be putting an entry in NEWS.Debian (for
> users script, ie things not under
> Debian still has to provide an upgrade path for users upgrading from Sarge.
> We cannot blindly break users scripts.
Here, the only way seems to be putting an entry in NEWS.Debian (for
users script, ie things not under our control).
> We did something similar with "su" but we did it earlier in
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:22:12PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>
> Since this seems to have been an intentional behavior change by
> upstream to better align with a published standard, I'm uninclined to
> fight it, and think our best response is to update our utilities to
> include the --wildcards
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 13:00 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> It's not so much packages already in the archive, it's every package
> that is being prepared to be uploaded.
>
> Lintian *always* fails for all packages that I build on a system with
> the updated tar. None of those packages failed prior t
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:02 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> Le lun 26 juin 2006 21:53, Petr Vandrovec a écrit :
>>> Maybe it could be default for tar's POSIX mode, but I have no idea
>>> why GNU mode behavior should be changed in any way.
>> I second that. it's now complet
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:02 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le lun 26 juin 2006 21:53, Petr Vandrovec a écrit :
> > Maybe it could be default for tar's POSIX mode, but I have no idea
> > why GNU mode behavior should be changed in any way.
>
> I second that. it's now completely unpossible to do bas
Le mar 27 juin 2006 13:37, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:02 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Le lun 26 juin 2006 21:53, Petr Vandrovec a écrit :
> > > Maybe it could be default for tar's POSIX mode, but I have no
> > > idea why GNU mode behavior should be changed in any way.
Le lun 26 juin 2006 21:53, Petr Vandrovec a écrit :
> Maybe it could be default for tar's POSIX mode, but I have no idea
> why GNU mode behavior should be changed in any way.
I second that. it's now completely unpossible to do basic packaging
work, because such a change wasn't planned. I also don
[I'm not on Debian-devel, so please CC me]
Bdale Garbee wrote:
The new tar behavior with respect to wildcards is not a change I
introduced just for Debian, it's a new upstream change that appears to
be quite intentional and well documented, as per this text from the tar
info docs:
The follow
The new tar behavior with respect to wildcards is not a change I
introduced just for Debian, it's a new upstream change that appears to
be quite intentional and well documented, as per this text from the tar
info docs:
The following table summarizes pattern-matching default values:
Members
13 matches
Mail list logo
