On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:26:55PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
> debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will only
> overwrite the existing versions if they have not been modified or the user
> request
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:26:55PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
> debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will only
> overwrite the existing versions if they have not been modified or the user
> reques
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:29:00AM +0100, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> My problem is : when upgrading the package, the files in /var/lib/crafty are
> overwritten by the original files coming with the new version package. How can
> I preserve these files from being overwritten ? The files are norma
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> > > Perhaps better: copy it in the postinst, remove the old version in the
> > > postinst. Then if any problems arise, the original version will still
> > > be present.
> >
> > BAD idea. This will defeat the conffile change detection engine in dpkg
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:34:19AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 05:15:37AM +0100, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> > > Remember to correctly unwind, moving the conffile back to its original
> > > place
> > > (as long as the original file does not exist) in the abort-install an
Hi,
I'm in NM and I have adopted and packaged crafty, a chess engine.
Now, crafty keeps its opening books files in /var/lib/crafty and these files
are updated whenever a new position is played. Crafty 'learns' :-)
My problem is : when upgrading the package, the files in /var/lib/crafty are
overw
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:29:00AM +0100, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> My problem is : when upgrading the package, the files in /var/lib/crafty are
> overwritten by the original files coming with the new version package. How can
> I preserve these files from being overwritten ? The files are norm
The 'edited by you or by a script line' which currently gets served up to
users is apparently not quite in line with policy. It would probably be
more appropriate to say somethine like 'The configuration file for this
package has been modified since the package was installed' or something
like t
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> > > Perhaps better: copy it in the postinst, remove the old version in the
> > > postinst. Then if any problems arise, the original version will still
> > > be present.
> >
> > BAD idea. This will defeat the conffile change detection engine in dpk
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:34:19AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 05:15:37AM +0100, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> > > Remember to correctly unwind, moving the conffile back to its original place
> > > (as long as the original file does not exist) in the abort-install and
> >
Hi,
I'm in NM and I have adopted and packaged crafty, a chess engine.
Now, crafty keeps its opening books files in /var/lib/crafty and these files
are updated whenever a new position is played. Crafty 'learns' :-)
My problem is : when upgrading the package, the files in /var/lib/crafty are
over
The 'edited by you or by a script line' which currently gets served up to
users is apparently not quite in line with policy. It would probably be
more appropriate to say somethine like 'The configuration file for this
package has been modified since the package was installed' or something
like
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:14:57PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 11:27:32PM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote:
> > Nice theory. But when I create meschach.postinst and meschach-dev.postint,
> > I find that meschach.postinst finds its way into the meschach-dev deb file!
> > This in
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:04:18PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 05:56:16AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > > >From current policy:
> > >
> > > When specifying the set of build-time dependencies, one should list
> > > only those packages explicitly required by the build.
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 11:27:32PM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote:
> Nice theory. But when I create meschach.postinst and meschach-dev.postint,
> I find that meschach.postinst finds its way into the meschach-dev deb file!
> This in spite of the fact that the ./debian directory has a meschach-dev
> subd
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 05:56:16AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > >From current policy:
> >
> > When specifying the set of build-time dependencies, one should list
> > only those packages explicitly required by the build. It is not
> > necessary to list packages which are required merely
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 05:15:37AM +0100, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> > Remember to correctly unwind, moving the conffile back to its original place
> > (as long as the original file does not exist) in the abort-install and
> > abort-upgrade targets of preinst, postrm and postinst. [never tried th
On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 01:22:03PM -0600, Gordon Sadler wrote:
>
> Create files named debian/post{rm,inst} and debian/pre{rm,inst} if you
> need to add specific code for one package. For multiple debs from same
> source create debian/$package.post{rm,inst} debian/$package.pre{rm,inst}
>
Nice th
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> Well, sort of. For the packe in question, it does. But say there was
> a package that depended on both GLib and GNOME (say, by including
If your package directly depends on another, declare it. The depends that
are to be left 'implicit' are those of the packa
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:32:06AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:16:16PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > > $ lintian --version
> > > Lintian v1.20.6
> > > $ lintian uf-view_1.2-2_i386.changes
> > > E: uf-view source: package-uses-debhelper-but-lacks-build-depends
> >
> > Fixed,
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:14:57PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 11:27:32PM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote:
> > Nice theory. But when I create meschach.postinst and meschach-dev.postint,
> > I find that meschach.postinst finds its way into the meschach-dev deb file!
> > This in
Ok,
now I found someone. Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
agreed to sponsor me. Thank you,
Jochen
--
Omm
(0)-(0)
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/privat.html
pgpuwQI3QAXs8.pgp
Description: PGP signat
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:04:18PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 05:56:16AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > > >From current policy:
> > >
> > > When specifying the set of build-time dependencies, one should list
> > > only those packages explicitly required by the build
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 11:27:32PM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote:
> Nice theory. But when I create meschach.postinst and meschach-dev.postint,
> I find that meschach.postinst finds its way into the meschach-dev deb file!
> This in spite of the fact that the ./debian directory has a meschach-dev
> sub
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 05:56:16AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > >From current policy:
> >
> > When specifying the set of build-time dependencies, one should list
> > only those packages explicitly required by the build. It is not
> > necessary to list packages which are required merel
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 05:15:37AM +0100, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> > Remember to correctly unwind, moving the conffile back to its original place
> > (as long as the original file does not exist) in the abort-install and
> > abort-upgrade targets of preinst, postrm and postinst. [never tried t
On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 01:22:03PM -0600, Gordon Sadler wrote:
>
> Create files named debian/post{rm,inst} and debian/pre{rm,inst} if you
> need to add specific code for one package. For multiple debs from same
> source create debian/$package.post{rm,inst} debian/$package.pre{rm,inst}
>
Nice t
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> Well, sort of. For the packe in question, it does. But say there was
> a package that depended on both GLib and GNOME (say, by including
If your package directly depends on another, declare it. The depends that
are to be left 'implicit' are those of the pack
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:32:06AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >From current policy:
>
> When specifying the set of build-time dependencies, one should list
> only those packages explicitly required by the build. It is not
> necessary to list packages which are required merely be
Hi,
I'm still looking for a sponsor for the
gnome-utils package. My version is at
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/gnome-utils/
If nobody volunteers, how could I increase the
probability of finding a sponsor?
Jochen
--
Omm
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:32:06AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:16:16PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > > $ lintian --version
> > > Lintian v1.20.6
> > > $ lintian uf-view_1.2-2_i386.changes
> > > E: uf-view source: package-uses-debhelper-but-lacks-build-depends
> >
> > Fixed
Ok,
now I found someone. Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
agreed to sponsor me. Thank you,
Jochen
--
Omm
(0)-(0)
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/privat.html
PGP signature
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:32:06AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >From current policy:
>
> When specifying the set of build-time dependencies, one should list
> only those packages explicitly required by the build. It is not
> necessary to list packages which are required merely b
Hi,
I'm still looking for a sponsor for the
gnome-utils package. My version is at
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/gnome-utils/
If nobody volunteers, how could I increase the
probability of finding a sponsor?
Jochen
--
Omm
34 matches
Mail list logo
