Hi!
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 23:10:30 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Guillem Jover]
Hope that explains.
Thank you, it does. And after giving it some thoughts, I believe the
background for my surprise is that I expect recommends to behave like
depends when APT::Install-Recommends is
[Guillem Jover]
Hope that explains.
Thank you, it does. And after giving it some thoughts, I believe the
background for my surprise is that I expect recommends to behave like
depends when APT::Install-Recommends is enabled. Handling it like
something else break the priciple of least surprise
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
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
[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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
severity 483997 wishlist
Bug#483997: dpkg: please allow for a mechanism to specify postinst ordering
beyond Depends:
Severity set to `wishlist' from `normal'
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug
severity 483997 wishlist
thanks
On Sun, 01 Jun 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
Right now, if you have two packages that have a relationship with each
other beyond a strict Dependency, there is no way to communicate that
relationship to dpkg. I'm talking about things covered semantically
by the
This one time, at band camp, Raphael Hertzog said:
severity 483997 wishlist
thanks
On Sun, 01 Jun 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
Right now, if you have two packages that have a relationship with each
other beyond a strict Dependency, there is no way to communicate that
relationship to dpkg.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
I'm talking about ordering of maintainer scripts in an install run.
This I understood, but maintainer script are mostly used for simple tasks
and for starting/stopping services. Thus I was asking you if the
case where you want to order the configuration
This one time, at band camp, Raphael Hertzog said:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
I'm talking about ordering of maintainer scripts in an install run.
This I understood, but maintainer script are mostly used for simple
tasks and for starting/stopping services. Thus I was asking you
13 matches
Mail list logo
