On Tue, Feb 3 1998 10:39 +0500 "Adam P. Harris" writes:
> David, did you ever get any sort of solution on this?
No, I'm still waiting until a solution is emerging and settled on
debian-policy.
> Perhaps there should be a pointer from developers documentation on how
> to deal with a conffile which
"David" == David Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I today just found out, that my magicfilter violates the newest
> policy by rewritting /etc/printcap, which is lpr|lprng's confile.
> What would be the correct solution for this problem? Shall I require
> that the lpr|lprng maintainer writes a mo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Browning) wrote on 19.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 2. Build it as part of the post install, and possibly provide scripts
> > for other packages to modify it.
>
> The packages can use update-alternatives here to make sure
Rob Browning writes:
> The packages can use update-alternatives here to make sure that when
> magicfilter's uninstalled, lprng's printcap comes back.
If this is done, I'd think diversions are a better way to do that.
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer
On Mon, Jan 19 1998 14:20 CST Steve Greenland writes:
> Providing a 'modify-' script doesn't solve the problem.
Why not?
> The problem is that the conffile is modified without the user knowing, and
> the next time they install the package that provided the conffile, they
> get messages about repla
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2. Build it as part of the post install, and possibly provide scripts
> for other packages to modify it.
The packages can use update-alternatives here to make sure that when
magicfilter's uninstalled, lprng's printcap comes back.
--
Rob Browning <[E
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Frey) wrote on 17.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I today just found out, that my magicfilter violates the newest policy
> by rewritting /etc/printcap, which is lpr|lprng's confile.
> What would be the correct solution for this problem? Shall I require that
> the lpr|lprn
On 17-Jan-1998 16:52:52, David Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I today just found out, that my magicfilter violates the newest policy
> by rewritting /etc/printcap, which is lpr|lprng's confile.
> What would be the correct solution for this problem? Shall I require that
> the lpr|lprng maintainer
Hello fellow developpers,
I today just found out, that my magicfilter violates the newest policy
by rewritting /etc/printcap, which is lpr|lprng's confile.
What would be the correct solution for this problem? Shall I require that
the lpr|lprng maintainer writes a modify-printcap command, so that I
9 matches
Mail list logo
