Re: RFC: declaritive diversions

Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 11:55 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Did you see my earlier mail about the very same thing? > > No I didn't, sorry. > > I'm glad the concept seems to have positive reactions regardless. > > -Rob I have the problem that I

Re: RFC: declaritive diversions

On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 11:55 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Did you see my earlier mail about the very same thing? No I didn't, sorry. I'm glad the concept seems to have positive reactions regardless. -Rob -- GPG key available at: . signature.asc D

Re: RFC: declaritive diversions

Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ian and I have chatted a few times about diversions in packages. It > seems like it would be easier to look for packages that should divert > (and don't), or do (and perhaps shouldn't :)) if the diversions were > declared in the package rather than bein

Re: RFC: declaritive diversions

Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian and I have chatted a few times about diversions in packages. It > seems like it would be easier to look for packages that should divert > (and don't), or do (and perhaps shouldn't :)) if the diversions were > declared in the package rather than being

Re: RFC: declaritive diversions

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't have much to contribute to a discussion (other than to say that > the idea seems reasonable), but I would like to register my interest in > being a pair of eyeballs for whatever spec you come up with for this. > Currently, maintainers that use d

Re: RFC: declaritive diversions

On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 06:40:37PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > Ian and I have chatted a few times about diversions in packages. It > seems like it would be easier to look for packages that should divert > (and don't), or do (and perhaps shouldn't :)) if the diversions were > declared in the pack

Re: RFC: declaritive diversions

Steinar H. Gunderson writes ("Re: RFC: declaritive diversions"): > if ! dpkg --assert-declarative-diversions 2>/dev/null; then > dpkg --divert etc. > fi I would prefer to do this in dpkg-divert. Eg dpkg-divert --also-declaratively-declared ... > Given that we

Re: RFC: declaritive diversions

On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 04:19:15PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ideally the setup should allow the same packages to declare diversions > both ways. This would make the transition a lot easier. if ! dpkg --assert-declarative-diversions 2>/dev/null; then dpkg --divert etc. fi Given that we

Re: RFC: declaritive diversions

Robert Collins writes ("RFC: declaritive diversions"): > I don't have a proposed syntax at this point, but I was thinking a > control file in the source such as debian/PACKAGENAME.diversions would > be a good starting point - if thats able to record everything thats > n

Re: RFC: declaritive diversions

On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 06:40:37PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > Ian and I have chatted a few times about diversions in packages. It > seems like it would be easier to look for packages that should divert > (and don't), or do (and perhaps shouldn't :)) if the diversions were > declared in the pack

RFC: declaritive diversions

Ian and I have chatted a few times about diversions in packages. It seems like it would be easier to look for packages that should divert (and don't), or do (and perhaps shouldn't :)) if the diversions were declared in the package rather than being done by turing complete code :). This is a long-p