On 24-Aug-02, 09:48 (CDT), Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 21:40, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > While I'll grant you that "dangerous" is probably not the correct
> > adjective, the current behaviour is correct. Debian policy is that
> > packages don't override admin modifications to co
On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 21:40, Steve Greenland wrote:
> While I'll grant you that "dangerous" is probably not the correct
> adjective, the current behaviour is correct. Debian policy is that
> packages don't override admin modifications to configuration files.
> Removing a file is a modification. End
On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 16:08, Marc Singer wrote:
> Without a single example, I don't see how installing a configuration
> file where there is none can have *any* affect on the system.
Off the top of my head, try "ls -ld /etc/cron.* /etc/*.d" That should
give you a very incomplete list of directori
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 05:10:58PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> As far as I can tell there is no way to pass --force-confmiss to dpkg
> when using apt-get. Perhaps this is the only real omission.
Fortunately it is still possible and legal to run dpkg directly.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Steve Greenland wrote:
> apt-get --option Dpkg::Options=--force-confmiss
apt-get \
-o Dpkg::Options::=--force-confmiss \
-o Dpkg::Options::=--force-somethingelse \
Note the trailing ::
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 01:49:39PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >because there is no compelling reason
> >to keep db.root a configuration file
>
>
> But there IS a compelling reason to keep db.root a configuration file:
> alternic
>
> I
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>because there is no compelling reason
>to keep db.root a configuration file
But there IS a compelling reason to keep db.root a configuration file:
alternic
I don't use them, but debian shouldn't trash files that a sysadmin needs
to change
On 22-Aug-02, 11:12 (CDT), Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 11:38:36PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > The trouble with removing db.root is that it may not be obvious how to
> > recover when it is missing.
>
> the questions to replace/diff/keep a modified conffil
On 21-Aug-02, 19:16 (CDT), Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It does appear that there are a couple of good examples. In fact,
> this is not one of them since what you ought to ship is a cron.allow
> that blocks everything, right?
No, because that is not the expected, traditional beh
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 10:26:45AM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 08:44:04AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > No less appropriate than your one-line dismissal of a reasonable and
> > tactful response.
>
> So let me get this straight. You equate "shut up" with a request for
>
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 08:44:04AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 05:10:58PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
>
> > This terse reply is obviously inappropriate. If you are annoyed, stop
> > writing.
>
> No less appropriate than your one-line dismissal of a reasonable and tactful
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 11:38:36PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> The trouble with removing db.root is that it may not be obvious how to
> recover when it is missing.
the questions to replace/diff/keep a modified conffile, why dont they apply
to missing conffiles, too?
Greetings
Bernd
--
(OO)
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 05:10:58PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> This terse reply is obviously inappropriate. If you are annoyed, stop
> writing.
No less appropriate than your one-line dismissal of a reasonable and tactful
response.
> I was asking for real examples in order to discuss how the cas
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 01:08:53PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> Without a single example, I don't see how installing a configuration
> file where there is none can have *any* affect on the system.
Removing /etc/snmp/snmpd.conf causes snmpd to _NOT_ start.
Reinstalling the conffile would reenable s
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 10:19:49PM -0400, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> > Still, breaking bind's access to root name servers is particularly
> > troublesome because it may tend to break all net access. It may be
> > worthwhile to remove db.root from the list of configuration files.
> > Especially, becau
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> > For example...
>
> Logcheck has a number of files under /etc/logcheck/ignore.d... that are
> marked as configuration files. Removing a configuration files means that
> more information is present in the l
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 01:18:35AM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 08:47:46AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 05:10:58PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > > As far as I can tell there is no way to pass --force-confmiss to dpkg
> > > when using apt-get. Perhap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:42:53PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > > Sounds like you want dpkg --force-confmiss.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't expect that since the documentation states:
> > >
> > > confmiss: Always
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 08:47:46AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 05:10:58PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > I was asking for real examples in order to discuss how the case of
> > bind and db.root is *not* a member of that set and how there may be a
> > genuine problem with the
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 05:10:58PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> I was asking for real examples in order to discuss how the case of
> bind and db.root is *not* a member of that set and how there may be a
> genuine problem with the handling of installing over missing
> configuration files.
Maybe db.r
> Still, breaking bind's access to root name servers is particularly
> troublesome because it may tend to break all net access. It may be
> worthwhile to remove db.root from the list of configuration files.
> Especially, because this list isn't something anyone should need to
> change.
I beg to d
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 06:39:55PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 21-Aug-02, 15:10 (CDT), Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It would help to have an example.
>
> I could have sworn I had a footnote about /etc/cron.allow, with a
> reference to the appropriate manpage :-). Okay, it's
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 07:32:04PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 04:23:16PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 07:06:22PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > _Any_ program whose default (Debian) configuration file specifies
> > > options which are diffe
On 21-Aug-02, 15:10 (CDT), Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would help to have an example.
I could have sworn I had a footnote about /etc/cron.allow, with a
reference to the appropriate manpage :-). Okay, it's not the *best*
example, because I don't actually ship a cron.allow, but th
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 04:23:16PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 07:06:22PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > _Any_ program whose default (Debian) configuration file specifies
> > options which are different from the compiled-in defaults.
> >
> > For specific examples, see al
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 07:06:22PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:49:19PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
>
> > For example...
>
> _Any_ program whose default (Debian) configuration file specifies options
> which are different from the compiled-in defaults.
>
> For specific
On Wednesday, August 21, 2002, at 09:08 PM, Marc Singer wrote:
Without a single example, I don't see how installing a configuration
file where there is none can have *any* affect on the system.
Admittedly, replacing a configuration file may be undesirable.
In addition to the example of configuratio
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:49:19PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> For example...
_Any_ program whose default (Debian) configuration file specifies options
which are different from the compiled-in defaults.
For specific examples, see almost any program on your system with a global
config file.
--
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:12:37PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:21:39PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 01:10:29PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > > It would help to have an example. However, even if there is an
> > > example I don't see how db.root f
Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Without a single example, I don't see how installing a configuration
> file where there is none can have *any* affect on the system.
> Admittedly, replacing a configuration file may be undesirable.
>
There might be (and surely are) programs, that will, gi
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:21:39PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 01:10:29PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > To be, perhaps, a little more explicit: there are programs for which
> > > the existence of an empt
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 10:21:17PM +0200, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:49:19PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:42:53PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > > > Sounds like you want dpkg --force-confmiss.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't expect that since the docum
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 01:10:29PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > To be, perhaps, a little more explicit: there are programs for which
> > the existence of an empty configuration file means something completely
> > different than a m
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:49:19PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:42:53PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > > Sounds like you want dpkg --force-confmiss.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't expect that since the documentation states:
> > >
> > > confmiss: Always install a missing con
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 21-Aug-02, 14:42 (CDT), Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:32:00PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > > How could it be dangerous to install a *missing* configuration file?
> >
> > If the default c
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 10:04:28PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:49:19PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > > > > Sounds like you want dpkg --force-confmiss.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't expect that since the documentation states:
> > > >
> > > > confmiss: Always install a mi
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:49:19PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > > > Sounds like you want dpkg --force-confmiss.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't expect that since the documentation states:
> > >
> > > confmiss: Always install a missing configuration
> > > file. This is dangerous, sinc
On 21-Aug-02, 14:42 (CDT), Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:32:00PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > How could it be dangerous to install a *missing* configuration file?
>
> If the default configuration data in the file do something you don't want.
>
To be, perha
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:42:53PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > Sounds like you want dpkg --force-confmiss.
> >
> > I wouldn't expect that since the documentation states:
> >
> > confmiss: Always install a missing configuration
> > file. This is dangerous, since it means n
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:32:00PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > > I'm confused by the behavior of apt-get install --reinstall. I found
> > > out yesterday that the /etc/bind/db.root file was missing on my name
> > > server. I was able to recover by linking to an old copy and
> > > restarting bin
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 08:24:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:09:57PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > I'm confused by the behavior of apt-get install --reinstall. I found
> > out yesterday that the /etc/bind/db.root file was missing on my name
> > server. I was able to
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:09:57PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> I'm confused by the behavior of apt-get install --reinstall. I found
> out yesterday that the /etc/bind/db.root file was missing on my name
> server. I was able to recover by linking to an old copy and
> restarting bind9. However, wh
I'm confused by the behavior of apt-get install --reinstall. I found
out yesterday that the /etc/bind/db.root file was missing on my name
server. I was able to recover by linking to an old copy and
restarting bind9. However, when deleted the link and performed the
--reinstall command, the db.roo
43 matches
Mail list logo
