Hi,
In 2009, Colin Watson wrote:
/etc/kernel-img.conf is a weird case. To start with, it's initially
created by the installer (base-installer) and the update-grub line is
added by another part of the installer (grub-installer). Obviously the
installer can't own a configuration file
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
That last if seems like an odd and not too useful loophole. It would
be nicer for policy to clearly state that packages *should not* modify
configuration files owned by other packages directly, whether a tool for
indirectly modifying is provided or
Le Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 08:55:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
We should be consistent about terminology. Other than that nit, seconded.
Seconded as well.
This bug reminds me #683495 (#!/usr/bin/perl MUST or SHOULD?), which is also
about must statements encapsulated in a should area.
In
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:54:10PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
For example we grub/grub2 maintainers have the problem that some people
still have /sbin/update-grub in their /etc/kernel-img.conf.
grub-legacy has a wrapper to warn about this since etch, but we recently
got a bug report in grub2
On Thu, Jun 18 2009, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:54:10PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
In message #36 [0] and #46 [1], he told me that we should either keep it
as an symlink or just edit automatically /etc/kernel-img.conf
/etc/kernel-img.conf is edited by grub-installer
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Sune Vuorela wrote:
so it seems that the alternative interpretation, is that if there
is a interface, then it must be used, but all that is wrapped in a
should, which is not as binding as a must.
While this section of policy could probably be
There has recently on #debian-devel been a few discussions about wether
it was allowed to edit other packages configuration files
(not 'conffiles') in maintainer scripts.
For example by me.
For me it isn't clear.
For example we grub/grub2 maintainers have the problem that some people
still have
On Wed, Jun 17 2009, Felix Zielcke wrote:
There has recently on #debian-devel been a few discussions about wether
it was allowed to edit other packages configuration files
(not 'conffiles') in maintainer scripts.
For example by me.
For me it isn't clear.
10.7.4 says:
The owning package
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.1.0
Severity: important
Hi
There has recently on #debian-devel been a few discussions about wether
it was allowed to edit other packages configuration files
(not 'conffiles') in maintainer scripts.
My interpretation of policy is that you are only allowed to
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:01:38AM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.1.0
Severity: important
Hi
There has recently on #debian-devel been a few discussions about wether
it was allowed to edit other packages configuration files
(not 'conffiles') in
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
severity 533287 wishlist
Bug#533287: debian-policy: please clarify 10.7.4
Severity set to `wishlist' from `important'
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
severity 533287 wishlist
thanks
Sune Vuorela report...@pusling.com writes:
There has recently on #debian-devel been a few discussions about
wether it was allowed to edit other packages configuration files (not
'conffiles') in maintainer scripts.
My interpretation of policy is that you are
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 20:05:40 Russ Allbery wrote:
severity 533287 wishlist
thanks
Sune Vuorela report...@pusling.com writes:
There has recently on #debian-devel been a few discussions about
wether it was allowed to edit other packages configuration files (not
'conffiles') in
Sune Vuorela report...@pusling.com writes:
To be honest, I also have a hard time seeing the issues, but after
participating two days in a row debating this with different people in
#debian-devel, I just thought that something must be unclear. I asked a bit,
and a specific should the
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Sune Vuorela wrote:
so it seems that the alternative interpretation, is that if there
is a interface, then it must be used, but all that is wrapped in a
should, which is not as binding as a must.
While this section of policy could probably be clarified, violating a
should
15 matches
Mail list logo
