On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 02:07:08AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> I can see we don't agree on this matter, of course, that is clear. And
> I hope we can find common ground. But let me provocatively ask this
> first: is the same rule going to be enforced for all other changes
> that happen in the pro
Hi,
There are a few very unlikely corner cases where I'm unsure what would
be expected of dpkg:
1. a package not providing a diverted file, and then disappearing
pkg-a contains /x and registers a diversion /y -> z.
pkg-b contains /y
pkg-c Replaces pkg-a and contains /x
Installing pkg-c overw
On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 03:57, Simon Richter wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 5/7/23 18:14, Ansgar wrote:
>
> > Is there any specific reason why specifically diversions are a problem
> > where "it might work" is not sufficient? That is, why should we divert
> > from the usual standard for dealing with packages
Hi,
On 5/8/23 20:38, Luca Boccassi wrote:
[local diversions]
Sure, they are supported in the sense that they can be enabled, and
then you get to keep the pieces.
They are supported in the sense that someone actually added an explicit
flag for dpkg-divert for specifically this feature and do
Hello,
On Sun 07 May 2023 at 12:03PM +01, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> Sure, this is in the context of the ongoing discussion in the TC about
> revising their side of the advice.
I think it's highly unlikely that we revise it rather than just reissue
it, at the present time, because too many details a
> "Helmut" == Helmut Grohne writes:
Helmut> Hi Luca,
Helmut> On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 12:51:21PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>> The local/external aspect is already covered in Ansgar's reply
>> and subthread.
Helmut> I hope that we can at least agree that we don't have
Will get to the rest later tonight, two quick points:
On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 09:58, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the
> > default option working best for Debian is the one that matches the
> > project's choice of a filesystem layout. After all
On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 09:58, Helmut Grohne wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 02:07:08AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > I can see we don't agree on this matter, of course, that is clear. And
> > I hope we can find common ground. But let me provocatively ask this
> > first: is the same rule going
On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 19:06, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Sun 07 May 2023 at 12:03PM +01, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>
> > Sure, this is in the context of the ongoing discussion in the TC about
> > revising their side of the advice.
>
> I think it's highly unlikely that we revise it rather than
Hi Luca,
On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 01:56:53AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 19:06, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > It's designed to stop as-yet-unknown problems happening, too.
>
> Well, sure, but we've been at this for years, any such problems should
> really be known by now. This i
10 matches
Mail list logo
