Hello
I assume that my answer is a bit late as you wrote this in october.
I have written a package, dysyco that do similar things to what you
want.
Take a look. I may have misunderstood you.
// Ola
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 03:37:27PM -0400, Mark Roach wrote:
I am working on creating a package
Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello
I assume that my answer is a bit late as you wrote this in october.
I have written a package, dysyco that do similar things to what you
want.
Take a look. I may have misunderstood you.
// Ola
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 03:37:27PM -0400, Mark
[Goswin von Brederlow]
Actually that is forbidden by policy. A package may not change
another packages conffiles.
Actually, the policy forbids the _maintainer scripts_ of a package to
change another packages conffiles. It does not forbid a script in a
package to change another packages
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:33:16PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
This do not scale well, and make it harder to share knowledge across
several custom debian distros.
If x and y have configuration utilities xcfg and ycfg then z should
insofar as possible use xcfg and ycfg to make
[Jesus Climent]
The problem being that X using Debconf to store information, Y
modifying the info and then X getting an upgrade, the info stored by
X using Debconf might be used again to set the values in the data
file, which will break the initial purpose of Y.
Well, the solution to this
Am Monday 18 October 2004 02:01 schrieb Enrico Zini:
One problem with diversion could also be that the original package's
scripts won't probably edit the diverted conffile, but would probably
edit the file in the traditional place instead.
Same would be the case for admins and users, and
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 10:32:38PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
I am working on creating a package for UserLinux which will configure
several packages with sensible defaults for an authentication server. At
the moment, that means samba, slapd, pam and nss, but will also include
[Enrico Zini]
One of the suggestions that came out is using dpkg diversions.
I remember diversions came out in the past, and I don't remember how
come they didn't come out again. Was there something wrong with them?
I believe they are forbidden or don't work for conffiles. And we need
to
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 10:38:06PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Enrico Zini]
One of the suggestions that came out is using dpkg diversions.
I remember diversions came out in the past, and I don't remember how
come they didn't come out again. Was there something wrong with them?
I
So, my conclusion is that debconf is not particularly well suited to
integrating several otherwise-unrelated packages and I am unsure whether
working around the problem, or helping to improve debconf, or doing it
some other way entirely is the better approach... thoughts?
Debconf wasn't
[Thomas Hood]
Debconf wasn't designed to serve the purpose to which you are trying
to put it. Debconf is not a registry.
Actually, debconf was designed for first-time configuration of
packages, and is well suited for the task. Your mantra debconf is
not a registry does not apply here.
I think that you will find answers in debian-custom list. Adding it to
CC field.
El jue, 14-10-2004 a las 15:37 -0400, Mark Roach escribi:
I am working on creating a package for UserLinux which will configure
several packages with sensible defaults for an authentication server. At
the
12 matches
Mail list logo
