On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:12 AM Ondrej Novy wrote:
> but I want my package to work without init systems, for example inside
> Docker. But if systemd is installed, I need >= version.
I think I had a much simpler situation with chrome-gnome-shell.
According to upstream, Firefox older than 56 is no
Hi,
st 19. 9. 2018 v 10:07 odesílatel Wouter Verhelst
napsal:
> > Conflicts is just more strict Breaks,
>
> Eh, no.
>
ehm, yes: 7.4: Conflicts ... This is a stronger restriction than Breaks
You're claiming that the systemd support of your package won't work
> correctly unless you have a partic
Hi,
st 19. 9. 2018 v 13:21 odesílatel Ansgar Burchardt
napsal:
> Policy specifically says to use Breaks in this case: "Breaks should be
> used [...] when the breaking package exposes a bug in or interacts
> badly with particular versions of the broken package." (same section as
> above)
>
accor
On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 10:07 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 10:45:45AM +0200, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> > for example when files are overwritten. This is not case and Breaks
> > "is enough".
>
> "Breaks" means "will cause the other package to fail". That isn't the
> case here. A
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 10:45:45AM +0200, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> út 18. 9. 2018 v 10:30 odesílatel Lars Wirzenius napsal:
>
> Would Conflicts work here?
>
>
> Conflicts is just more strict Breaks,
Eh, no.
> for example when files are overwritten. This is not case and Breaks
> "is e
Hi,
út 18. 9. 2018 v 12:27 odesílatel Michael Biebl napsal:
> Fwiw, we had a similar issue in udev, see
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=903224
> for the gory details.
>
thanks.
> Have you tried running your swift service with an older (say v232 from
> stable) systemd?
> Do
Hi,
út 18. 9. 2018 v 12:18 odesílatel Michael Biebl napsal:
> assume you (re)start your service in postinst? In this case you need a
> running systemd >= 235 at that point.
>
yes.
> We do re-exec systemd in postinst, but a versioned Breaks or Conflicts
> does not give you the guarantee that
Am 18.09.18 um 12:00 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> I assume you (re)start your service in postinst? In this case you need a
> running systemd >= 235 at that point.
> We do re-exec systemd in postinst, but a versioned Breaks or Conflicts
> does not give you the guarantee that systemd.postinst has run bef
Am 18.09.18 um 09:21 schrieb Ondrej Novy:
> Hi,
>
> my package src:swift is not compatible with old systemd, because I'm
> using CacheDirectory in unit file. CacheDirectory is supported from
> systemd 235.
>
> I think correct solution is to add to binary package this relation:
> Breaks: systemd (
Hi,
út 18. 9. 2018 v 10:30 odesílatel Lars Wirzenius napsal:
> Would Conflicts work here?
>
Conflicts is just more strict Breaks, for example when files are
overwritten. This is not case and Breaks "is enough".
--
Best regards
Ondřej Nový
Email: n...@ondrej.org
PGP: 3D98 3C52 EB85 980C 46A5
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 09:21:11AM +0200, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> I think my solution is correct, because Swift works with any init system
> and I want to only say "it doesn't work with older systemd". I don't think
> it's correct to list all possible init systems in Depends.
Would Conflicts work her
Hi,
my package src:swift is not compatible with old systemd, because I'm
using CacheDirectory in unit file. CacheDirectory is supported from systemd
235.
I think correct solution is to add to binary package this relation:
Breaks: systemd (<< 235~)
Thomas Goirand (zigo) said it's wrong and correc
12 matches
Mail list logo
