Control: block 760084 by -1
Control: block 745834 by -1
Hi.
Following up on a old bug, which now affect packages related to apache2.
The new apache2 postinst code need such mechanism too. I ran into this
when migrating sitesummary to the new apache2 setup. The sitesummary
package recommends
Processing control commands:
block 760084 by -1
Bug #760084 [sitesummary] sitesummary: postinst fail on first but not second
invocation
760084 was not blocked by any bugs.
760084 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 760084: 483997
block 745834 by -1
Bug #745834 [apache2]
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 06:10:36AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
Hi!
Hello,
On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 11:23:41 +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
[..]
Some comments on the points raised in the review, although it's true that
dpkg itself should only be dealing with “trusted” data, otherwise you are
going
Hi!
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 10:10:18 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
Following up on a old bug, which now affect packages related to apache2.
The new apache2 postinst code need such mechanism too. I ran into this
when migrating sitesummary to the new apache2 setup. The sitesummary
package
Thank you for the quick reply.
[Guillem Jover]
I've not checked those bug reports, but I'm assuming that the
package might also fail in case apache2 is not installed at all? Or
how do you handle that case? And the subsequent missing
configuration when apache2 gets installed later on?
For
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 10:24:55 +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
Attached are my remaining patches that add _FILE_OFFSET_BITS 64,
Ah, sorry forgot to mention this because I thought you had already
figured it out and because I mentioned it in passing. The build system
is already supporting LFS by way of
[Guillem Jover]
The problem is that it would make the dependency resolution harder,
as that's in fact changing the Recommends to Depends. So dpkg would
have less leeway when there are dependency cycles and similar. But
see below.
I've tried to understand this comment, but failed so far. My
Hi,
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Guillem Jover]
I've not checked those bug reports, but I'm assuming that the
package might also fail in case apache2 is not installed at all? Or
how do you handle that case? And the subsequent missing
configuration when apache2 gets installed later on?
For
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 15:30:44 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Guillem Jover]
The problem is that it would make the dependency resolution harder,
as that's in fact changing the Recommends to Depends. So dpkg would
have less leeway when there are dependency cycles and similar. But
see
9 matches
Mail list logo
