rpm und packt es dann
wieder neu ein, diesmal nach deb-Format.
Andreas
--
You too can wear a nose mitten.
--
Haeufig gestellte Fragen und Antworten (FAQ):
http://www.de.debian.org/debian-user-german-FAQ/
Zum AUSTRAGEN schicken Sie eine Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mit dem Subject unsubscribe
Am Dienstag, den 18.01.2005, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Andreas Pakulat:
Ich ein wenig und nein. Alien entpackt das rpm und packt es dann
wieder neu ein, diesmal nach deb-Format.
Andreas
Hallo Andreas,
schn mal immer wieder was neues zu lernen :)
Eine Frage dazu: was passiert denn wenn man
On 18.Jan 2005 - 21:11:57, Wladimir Boger wrote:
Eine Frage dazu: was passiert denn wenn man ein rpm-Paket für z.B. SuSe
8.2 nimmt und unter Debian Sarge neubaut? Stimmen dann auch die
Abhänigkeiten, Pfade, Versionen etc? Gibt es da keine Konflikte?
Hmm, ich kenne die Interna von alien auch
Eu me desculpo. Concordo plenamente com Rafael (sobre o objetivo da
lista). Mas como disse: eu adoro flames. Tentarei me conter daqui em
diante. Porém, não posso deixar de acrescentar algo: O que existe no
Debian são _guidelines_, algo muito diferente de _burocracia_.
_guidelines_ estas que são
O Projeto Debian, de forma geral, possui uma estrutura e organizacao,
o que é epistemologicamente contraditório em relação ao conceito de
anarquia. E funciona muito bem.
A lista, por outro lado, é o mais próximo da anarquia que se pode ver
no Projeto. Por isso é a bagunça que vemos no dia-à-dia.
Preliminarmente, esclareço não querer provocar discussões a nível
pessoal, nem tenho, de fato, interesse em agredir quem quer que seja,
meu objetivo é ampliar o meu pequeno campo de conhecimento.
Rafael de Albuquerque escreveu:
O Projeto Debian, de forma geral, possui uma estrutura e
Vamos por partes, e tentando ser sucinto.
Nao me importa o que o Mandioca entende por anarquia, mas em nenhum
modelo anarquico que vc encontrar vai haver alguma compatibilidade com
burocaracia. E se vc não reparou, é um tipo de burocracia que garante
a integridade do Debian como ele é hj (apesar
Igor, há toda uma utopia nisso sim, mas o que o companheiro citou foi
que finalmente ele conseguiu ver algo tangível que chegasse próximo ao
sonho do que realmente seria a anarquia filosófica. Ele viu no Debian e
na sua organização constitutiva e associativa algo que pela maneira de
funcionar
Em Ter, 2005-01-04 às 00:10 +, arnoldo junior escreveu:
Igor, há toda uma utopia nisso sim, mas o que o companheiro citou foi
que finalmente ele conseguiu ver algo tangível que chegasse próximo ao
sonho do que realmente seria a anarquia filosófica. Ele viu no Debian e
na sua organização
Em Ter, 2005-01-04 às 03:44 -0200, mandioca escreveu:
Em Ter, 2005-01-04 às 00:10 +, arnoldo junior escreveu:
Igor, há toda uma utopia nisso sim, mas o que o companheiro citou foi
que finalmente ele conseguiu ver algo tangível que chegasse próximo ao
sonho do que realmente seria a
Opps! pra clarear mais os sentido das coisa,
segue quentinho do nosso Aurélio:
anarquia: sf. 1.Falta de governo ou de chefe.
2. Confusao ou desordem disso resultante.
anarquismo: sm. Teoria que considera a autoridade um mal
e preconiza a
De modo algum vejo anarquia com o sentido perjorativo.
Anarquia eh um sistema que nao possui controle ou regras onde cada
membro executa o que quer quando quer e aonde quer. E cada um tem a
consciencia do seu dever e dos seus direitos e a sociedade anda
perfeitamente.
O debian nao eh isso..
Em Qui, 2004-12-30 às 04:12 -0200, Igor Morgado escreveu:
2 posts gigantes.. mas vamos la..
Para adicionar...
http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/
Fala as verdades dos casos get the facts da microsoft.. Eu
particularmente tive o prazer de presenciar um dos casos que virou
destaque do get
2 posts gigantes.. mas vamos la..
Para adicionar...
http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/
Fala as verdades dos casos get the facts da microsoft.. Eu
particularmente tive o prazer de presenciar um dos casos que virou
destaque do get the facts brasil que a microsoft anunciou. Fiquei
feliz em ver como
Pessoal, sempre leio sobre problemas que as pessoas tem com pacotes
rpm, com o gerenciador rmp e etc...
Mas eu gostaria de saber porque tanto ódio hehehehe já que
distribuições bem conhecidas e utilizadas fazem uso desse formato.
Obrigado.
giulianisanches wrote:
Pessoal, sempre leio sobre problemas que as pessoas tem com pacotes
rpm, com o gerenciador rmp e etc...
Mas eu gostaria de saber porque tanto ódio hehehehe já que
distribuições bem conhecidas e utilizadas fazem uso desse formato.
Idiossincrasias. Tem gente que não gosta
Olá,
Os problemas com os pacotes rpm se devem ao fato de o gerenciador de
pacotes rpm não ser tão eficiente na resolução das dependências -
pelo menos é esta a informação histórica.
Recentemente tentei fazer uma atualização de um Fedora Core 2 e
simplesmente não consegui. Ele tem
As pessoas normalmente confundem APT com DPKG..
E acham que so ter o APT e voce vai dominar o mundo e seu sistema vai
ser facil de administrar.
O apt so eh poderoso e flexivel por que eh utilizado SOBRE o dpkg. APT
sobre rpm eh num nojo.
Claro que para quem esta comecando voce chegar num
Igor
Algumas coisas que vc cita eu passei quando usava conectiva e mandrake.
RH nunca usei de fato. Realmente, tive problemas de pacotes, tive de
reinstalar a máquina por problema da base rpm. Esse foi um dos motivos
de migrar para o debian.
Outra coisa, cheguei a usar apt-rpm no conectiva. E
Exatamente pelo problema RH eh que eh linux serio que eu odeio a RH.
Lobbies comerciais tipo Oraclo omologa RH Enterprise Linux 2
Pro diabo com RHEL2, pq a oracle nao omologa o debian? Tudo bem que
sabemos q existem 1 distribuicoes por ai. Mas o debian eh a mais
completa de todas e certamente
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 07:13:38PM -0200, Igor Morgado wrote:
Exatamente pelo problema RH eh que eh linux serio que eu odeio a RH.
Lobbies comerciais tipo Oraclo omologa RH Enterprise Linux 2
Pro diabo com RHEL2, pq a oracle nao omologa o debian? Tudo bem que
sabemos q existem 1
Neste mercado .. ninguem processa ninguem.. ninguem garante nada..
A unica coisa que da briga aki sao patentes.. E atualizcao por
atualizacao, a debian da um banho.
E NAO a Oracle (como muitas outras), NAO homologam o debian.
Ok. Mas eles ainda contribuem com o Fedora, não é? Ou o Fedora
Olá pessoal,
Permitam-me meter a colher no meio da discussão ...
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 07:13:38PM -0200, Igor Morgado wrote:
Exatamente pelo problema RH eh que eh linux serio que eu odeio a RH.
Lobbies comerciais tipo Oraclo omologa RH Enterprise Linux 2
Pro diabo com RHEL2, pq a oracle
Em Qua, 2004-12-29 às 19:47 -0200, Igor Morgado escreveu:
Neste mercado .. ninguem processa ninguem.. ninguem garante nada..
A unica coisa que da briga aki sao patentes.. E atualizcao por
atualizacao, a debian da um banho.
É lógico que há garantias. Uma empresa que necessita de serviços
Giorgio Raccanelli wrote:
I need to install a driver for my ATI Radeon 9600. I found at the
following URL the driver I'm looking for, but it is a .rpm file. Can I use
it in Debian?
apt-cache show alien
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
=8submit.y=7
the driver I'm looking for, but it is a .rpm file. Can I use it in Debian?
Thanks a lot
Try looking with google for Flavio Stanchina, if i recall the name
correclty, on his pages you should find enough info to use the ATI
proprietary drivers with Debian.
Andrea
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Hello
I need to install a driver for my ATI Radeon 9600. I found at the
following URL
http://www.ati.com/support/drivers/linux/radeon-linux.html?type=linuxprodType=graphicprod=productsLINUXdriversubmit.x=8submit.y=7
the driver I'm looking for, but it is a .rpm file. Can I use it in Debian
How can I use 'dpkg' to install a new .deb, but *only* if the package
is already on a machine? With RPM, you can use the freshen option
(-F or --freshen). But how with 'dpkg'?
In other words:
o If the package is already installed, then update it
o If the package is not installed, do
Kenneth Jacker wrote:
How can I use 'dpkg' to install a new .deb, but *only* if the package
is already on a machine? With RPM, you can use the freshen option
(-F or --freshen). But how with 'dpkg'?
In other words:
o If the package is already installed, then update it
o If the package
* Kenneth Jacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041107 17:05]:
How can I use 'dpkg' to install a new .deb, but *only* if the package
is already on a machine? With RPM, you can use the freshen option
(-F or --freshen). But how with 'dpkg'?
The only way I know (got through the package localepurge
* Alexander Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041107 17:42]:
* Kenneth Jacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041107 17:05]:
How can I use 'dpkg' to install a new .deb, but *only* if the package
is already on a machine? With RPM, you can use the freshen option
(-F or --freshen). But how with 'dpkg'?
apt-get
a 'dpkg' command-line option (similar
to rpm -F).
Hopefully what I'm trying to do is now clearer ...
Thanks for the responses!
-Kenneth
PS I realize I could also use 'apt-zip'. But so far, the above
approach has worked pretty well ...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
is present before upgrading), I thought there
might be an easier approach via a 'dpkg' command-line option (similar
to rpm -F).
Why not just:
# cp /cdrom/*deb /var/cache/apt/archives
# apt-get update
# apt-get upgrade
Any debs that are already in H:/var/cache/apt/archives won't be
re-downloaded
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 11:05:01 -0500
Kenneth Jacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can I use 'dpkg' to install a new .deb, but *only* if the package
is already on a machine? With RPM, you can use the freshen option
(-F or --freshen). But how with 'dpkg'?
In other words:
o If the package
Hi.
This isn't a silly question at all. For a long time I would use
dselect to just update the list of available packages, then I have to
view them just to get back out to the prompt to update.
However, this will do the same:
apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade
The first updates the list of
ne if (dpkg -l package-name | grep -c ii ) dpkg -i ./package.deb;
Though I might again consider using 'apt-zip', a slight variation of
the above should do what I need ...
Thanks, Niels!
-Kenneth
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Am Do, den 28.10.2004 schrieb Sven Hoexter um 1:02:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:15:44PM +0200, Dirk Weckerlei wrote:
Hallo Liste
Gibt es die Möglichkeit, meine alte fedora-kiste (downloadclient) welche
bekanntlich rpm basiert ist, apt-get beizubringen?
Wie läuft es dann mit den
(downloadclient) welche
bekanntlich rpm basiert ist, apt-get beizubringen?
Wie läuft es dann mit den Abhängikeiten? Soll ich einfach apt-get als
Paket installieren und dann eine sources.list generieren? Oder ist es
doch nicht so einfach?
apt.freshrpms.net
Wobei yum auch funktionieren sollte
Hallo Liste
Gibt es die Möglichkeit, meine alte fedora-kiste (downloadclient) welche
bekanntlich rpm basiert ist, apt-get beizubringen?
Wie läuft es dann mit den Abhängikeiten? Soll ich einfach apt-get als
Paket installieren und dann eine sources.list generieren? Oder ist es
doch nicht so einfach
Am Mittwoch, 27. Oktober 2004 21:15 schrieb Dirk Weckerlei:
Hallo Liste
Servus,
Gibt es die Möglichkeit, meine alte fedora-kiste (downloadclient)
welche bekanntlich rpm basiert ist, apt-get beizubringen?
Wie läuft es dann mit den Abhängikeiten? Soll ich einfach apt-get als
Paket installieren
Am 2004-10-27 21:15:44, schrieb Dirk Weckerlei:
Hallo Liste
Gibt es die Möglichkeit, meine alte fedora-kiste (downloadclient) welche
bekanntlich rpm basiert ist, apt-get beizubringen?
Wie läuft es dann mit den Abhängikeiten? Soll ich einfach apt-get als
Paket installieren und dann eine
On 27.Oct 2004 - 21:15:44, Dirk Weckerlei wrote:
Hallo Liste
Gibt es die Möglichkeit, meine alte fedora-kiste (downloadclient) welche
bekanntlich rpm basiert ist, apt-get beizubringen?
Wie läuft es dann mit den Abhängikeiten? Soll ich einfach apt-get als
Paket installieren und dann eine
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:15:44PM +0200, Dirk Weckerlei wrote:
Hallo Liste
Gibt es die Möglichkeit, meine alte fedora-kiste (downloadclient) welche
bekanntlich rpm basiert ist, apt-get beizubringen?
Wie läuft es dann mit den Abhängikeiten? Soll ich einfach apt-get als
Paket installieren und
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philippe Dhont (Sea-ro) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there a possibility to install these RPM's ?
Check out the alien package.
This e-mail is intended for the exclusive use by the person(s)
mentioned as recipient(s). If you are not the
Hi!
I have 2 programs i really want to install!
1) evolution connector is free now and i want it installed so that i can
move from outlook to evolution and connect to my exchange server
2) checkpoint securemote.
Is there a possibility to install these RPM's ?
Cheers,
Philippe
Disclaimer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 15 October 2004 02:09 pm, Philippe Dhont (Sea-ro) wrote:
Is there a possibility to install these RPM's ?
use alien to convert rpm packages to deb.
apt-cache show alien apt-get install alien
rrs
- --
Ritesh Raj Sarraf
RESEARCHUT
As someone said to you use alien...
I tried to install evolution connector in this way but i had so many
problems...my suggestion is to install it from sources and then,
eventually, build the deb package.
Philippe Dhont (Sea-ro) wrote:
Hi!
I have 2 programs i really want to install!
1)
, build the deb package.
Alien is to convert packages.
There isn't much surprise that you did face problems. The rpm package might be
designed for some other distribution. alien just does the work of conversion,
dependencies have to handled by self.
Bottomline, try alien as the last option.
As you
On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 10:39 +0200, Philippe Dhont (Sea-ro) wrote:
Hi!
I have 2 programs i really want to install!
1) evolution connector is free now and i want it installed so that i can
move from outlook to evolution and connect to my exchange server
2) checkpoint securemote.
Is
: Re: Install RPM ?
On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 10:39 +0200, Philippe Dhont (Sea-ro) wrote:
Hi!
I have 2 programs i really want to install!
1) evolution connector is free now and i want it installed so that i
can move from outlook to evolution and connect to my exchange server
2) checkpoint
On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 13:25 +0200, Philippe Dhont (Sea-ro) wrote:
??
When i perform an apt-cache search evolution, i only have evolution
and evolution-dev
Where is the debian package for the connector ?
In reply to your other query:
I wouldn't goto experimental. That is not what you are
Só uma observação:
Quando foi usar o dpkg, lembre-se de colocar caracteres como ? ou * entre
aspas, caso contrário ele será processado pelo shell
logo, voce pode fazer
dpkg -l samba\*
ou
dpkg -l samba*
algo como
dpkg -l | grep samba
é mais ou menos equivalente a
dpkg -l *samba*
As principais
Olá pessoal, há muito tempo que sou usuário das distros que utilizam
rpm, mas de uns tempos pra cá estou utilizando o Debian e estou
adorando. Porém ainda tenho dificuldade com alguns comandos, por exemplo
o dpkg.
Antes, com o rpm, eu utilizava o comando rpm -qa samba pra saber se o
samba
utilizam
rpm, mas de uns tempos pra cá estou utilizando o Debian e estou
adorando. Porém ainda tenho dificuldade com alguns comandos, por exemplo
o dpkg.
Antes, com o rpm, eu utilizava o comando rpm -qa samba pra saber se o
samba estava instalado. Qual o comando que devo utilizar no dpkg pra
Flávio Alencar wrote:
Olá pessoal, há muito tempo que sou usuário das distros que utilizam
rpm, mas de uns tempos pra cá estou utilizando o Debian e estou
adorando. Porém ainda tenho dificuldade com alguns comandos, por exemplo
o dpkg.
Antes, com o rpm, eu utilizava o comando rpm -qa samba
Flávio Alencar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Olá pessoal, há muito tempo que sou usuário das distros que utilizam
rpm, mas de uns tempos pra cá estou utilizando o Debian e estou
adorando. Porém ainda tenho dificuldade com alguns comandos, por exemplo
o dpkg.
Antes, com o rpm, eu utilizava o
, há muito tempo que sou usuário das distros que utilizam rpm, mas
de uns tempos pra cá estou utilizando o Debian e estou adorando. Porém ainda
tenho dificuldade com alguns comandos, por exemplo o dpkg.
Antes, com o rpm, eu utilizava o comando rpm -qa samba pra saber se o samba
estava instalado
instrucción
rpm -qa| grep CRITERIO
en CRITERIO ponia cosas tales como config, o dvd, o un largo ... para
ver si tenia algo instalado, ahora en debian no tengo ni idea de como
puedo hacer algo similar. Alguien me puede echar un cable!!
Muchas Gracias.
usban wrote:
rpm -qa| grep CRITERIO
El equivalente en debian es apt-cache (man apt-cache).
Un saludo
--
Jorge Tomé Hernando
http://www.JorgeTome.info
Linux Registered User #362778
: usban [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: Lunes, 20 de Septiembre de 2004 11:42
Para: debian-user-spanish@lists.debian.org
Asunto: rpm -a en Debian!??!
hola!!
Vereis tengo muy poca experiencia en Linux, y la poca que tengo la
adquirí en un cursillo de REd Hat, como de eso ya hace tiempo me he
: debian-user-spanish@lists.debian.org
Asunto: rpm -a en Debian!??!
hola!!
Vereis tengo muy poca experiencia en Linux, y la poca que tengo la
adquirí en un cursillo de REd Hat, como de eso ya hace tiempo me he
instalado ahora una debian que era la distro que tenía a mano. En REd
Hat y ante el
Me interesaría poder usar un determinado tipo de fuentes (éstas:
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsiitem_id=Gentium_linux)
que se pueden descargar como tarball o como paquete rpm. Lo primero implica
un proceso de instalación un poco complicado; lo segundo es ideal para
El Jueves, 16 de Septiembre de 2004 12:30, Josep Ysern escribió:
Me interesaría poder usar un determinado tipo de fuentes (éstas:
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsiitem_id=Gentium_li
nux) que se pueden descargar como tarball o como paquete rpm. Lo primero
implica un
Gracias por la información. No lo sabía. Me estoy descargando el paquete alien
y miraré si va bien. Se aplica sobre el tarball, supongo, y no sobre el rpm,
¿verdad?
A Dijous 16 Setembre 2004 12:31, Jose Angel Rodriguez Veiga va escriure:
Que yo sepa no, pero puedes convertir el paquete
El jue, 16-09-2004 a las 12:30 +0200, Josep Ysern escribió:
¿Debian Sarge puede instalar también paquetes rpm?
apt-get install alien
man alien
¿Puede perjudicar eso la estabilidad del
sistema? Me interesa porque, al no haber un paquete .deb, no sé exacatamente
qué es lo que más me
Con alien puedes instalar paquetes rpm, los tar.gz son las fuentes que
tp es muy complicado compilarlas, solo hay que leerse bien como
compilarla ...
El jue, 16-09-2004 a las 12:58, Josep Ysern escribió:
Gracias por la información. No lo sabía. Me estoy descargando el paquete
alien
y miraré
No el alien lo que hace es pasar de rpm a deb y viceversa, así que aplícalo al
rpm.
El Jueves, 16 de Septiembre de 2004 12:58, Josep Ysern escribió:
Gracias por la información. No lo sabía. Me estoy descargando el paquete
alien y miraré si va bien. Se aplica sobre el tarball, supongo, y
Ya está. He conseguido lo que quería. No conocía la herramienta alien. Me ha
convertido e instalado las fuentes sin más problemas. Gracias por la ayuda.
Cordialmente,
Josep
A Dijous 16 Setembre 2004 13:13, Jose Angel Rodriguez Veiga va escriure:
No el alien lo que hace es pasar de rpm a deb y
algún problema con la descarga de este paquete? Trabajo con una mezcla de
Sarge y Sid.
A Dijous 16 Setembre 2004 12:39, Ruben Porras va escriure:
El jue, 16-09-2004 a las 12:30 +0200, Josep Ysern escribió:
¿Debian Sarge puede instalar también paquetes rpm?
apt-get install alien
man alien
And I'm having no luck. Nothing seems to be where the
rpm wants it to be. Is there anything I can do to
make this rpm work?
Is there anyone that knows where this module compiled
for debian is?
It's part of a native driver for the i810 Intel
Extreme Graphics Controller. Maybe someone knows
Hi Eric,
And I'm having no luck. Nothing seems to be where the
rpm wants it to be. Is there anything I can do to
make this rpm work?
Why would you need an RPM? The agpgart module should be included with
any Debian kernel 2.4 package available in woody, sarge or sid (with the
possible
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:00:47PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...and having a lot of empty files in /etc is just pointless.
Where would any empty files come from?
How should a package tell dpkg to install an
John Hasler wrote:
Thomas Adam writes:
...But removing the symlinks in /etc/rc?.d/* for whatever DM is
running...
If you remove them they will be recreated when you upgrade the package.
Sysvconfig allows you to disable stuff. Just select Enable/Disable in
the main menu and follow
would any empty files come from?
In rpm, they're typically not empty - they're full of interesting and
useful comments, and potentially usable defaults. :-)
--
Paul
http://paulgear.webhop.net
--
Did you know? If you use two dashes followed by a space as your
signature separator, good email
Paul Gear writes:
In rpm, they're typically not empty - they're full of interesting and
useful comments, and potentially usable defaults.
We are talking about files the contents of which are created by maintainer
scripts. Other configuration files in Debian packages _are_ full of
interesting
John Hasler wrote:
Paul Gear writes:
In rpm, they're typically not empty - they're full of interesting and
useful comments, and potentially usable defaults.
We are talking about files the contents of which are created by maintainer
scripts. Other configuration files in Debian packages
Frank Küster writes:
But this would have the consequence that all those files would have to be
created by dpkg, and clutter /etc.
No files would be created that were not subsequently filled in by a
maintainer script. I don't know where you get the idea that that any
files, empty or otherwise,
John Summerfield writes:
I use file-rc.
I didn't think that people who know about file-rc and choose to install it
would be interested in sysvconfig (note the name). Patches are welcome.
Now it needs to get part of the base install...
I see little chance of that.
For other RH (and SuSE)
Paul Gear writes:
...when i come to a config file that is important to the running of a
package, i expect that there should be some way to trace it back to the
fact that relates to the package.
Please read the thread from the beginning. That is precisely what we are
talking about. Evidently
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 08:33:47AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Frank Küster writes:
But this would have the consequence that all those files would have to be
created by dpkg, and clutter /etc.
No files would be created that were not subsequently filled in by a
maintainer script. I don't
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Frank Küster writes:
But this would have the consequence that all those files would have to be
created by dpkg, and clutter /etc.
No files would be created that were not subsequently filled in by a
maintainer script. I don't know where you get the
John Summerfield writes:
I know shorewall 2.0 as packaged for Debian has an empty /etc/shorewall,
but why it shouldn't be full of sample config files containing lots of
interesting comments I really don't know.
Because you have not filed a bug with a patch containing such a file.
Even where
Frank Küster writes:
There are maintainer scripts that create different configuration files,
or a different number of configuration files, depending on the existing
settings on the installing computer - or depending on debconf answers.
Those scripts could remove the files they don't use.
--
Colin Watson writes:
What were you planning to do on upgrade? Normally, dpkg would set the
files back to empty.
And the postinst will fill them up again (the preinst could save them, but
that's ugly).
There is no point in discussing this further, though, if dpkg is going to
have a registration
John Hasler wrote:
John Summerfield writes:
I know shorewall 2.0 as packaged for Debian has an empty /etc/shorewall,
but why it shouldn't be full of sample config files containing lots of
interesting comments I really don't know.
Because you have not filed a bug with a patch containing
John Hasler [u] wrote on 25/08/2004 17:23:
Frank Küster writes:
There are maintainer scripts that create different configuration files,
or a different number of configuration files, depending on the existing
settings on the installing computer - or depending on debconf answers.
Those scripts could
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:14:53PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Or even better maybe, four shorewall packages - the current one being
renamed shorewall-common and the others each depending on
shorewall-common and having sample configurations for one interface, two
Tim Kelley quotes:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:14:53PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Or even better maybe, four shorewall packages - the current one being
renamed shorewall-common and the others each depending on
shorewall-common and having sample configurations
Tim Kelley wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:14:53PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Or even better maybe, four shorewall packages - the current one being
renamed shorewall-common and the others each depending on
shorewall-common and having sample configurations for
John Hasler wrote:
Tim Kelley quotes:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:14:53PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Or even better maybe, four shorewall packages - the current one being
renamed shorewall-common and the others each depending on
shorewall-common and having sample
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:17:49AM +1000, Paul Gear wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
That is precisely what we are talking about.
What you said was We are talking about files the contents of which are
created by maintainer scripts. My point was that it doesn't matter
what creates it (the package
Hi folks,
What is the canonical method for determining to which package an
installed file belongs? dpkg -S seems to be the right *sort* of thing,
but doesn't always work:
enoch:/share/download # dpkg -S /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/70debconf
debconf: /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/70debconf
enoch:/share/download #
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:44:33PM +1000, Paul Gear wrote:
Hi folks,
What is the canonical method for determining to which package an
installed file belongs? dpkg -S seems to be the right *sort* of thing,
but doesn't always work:
enoch:/share/download # dpkg -S
Hello
Paul Gear ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
What is the canonical method for determining to which package an
installed file belongs? dpkg -S seems to be the right *sort* of
thing, but doesn't always work:
enoch:/share/download # dpkg -S /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/70debconf
debconf:
Thomas Adam wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:44:33PM +1000, Paul Gear wrote:
Hi folks,
What is the canonical method for determining to which package an
installed file belongs? dpkg -S seems to be the right *sort* of thing,
but doesn't always work:
enoch:/share/download # dpkg -S
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:11:33PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
It's doing *exactly* what you asked of it. Remember that dpkg -S will only
work for files that were *in* a package initially and not ones that were
*created*. /etc/apt/sources.list is created by apt-setup from 'base-config',
but does
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:28:09PM +1000, Paul Gear wrote:
Is it fairly common, then, that packages only create their config files,
and don't include them in the package originally. I can see times when
Of course it is. There are *hundreds* of files that are created in this
manner, usually
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 08:49:57AM -0400, Jason Rennie wrote:
Geez. Try answering the question, not insulting the guy. The dpkg
man page is unclear on what -S does:
I wasn't insulting anybody. The *words* were there, only to place emphasis on
the fundamental differences in operation.
Thomas Adam writes:
As I have said, if the file was created by an application, then it
clearly cannot belong to a package.
The question was about files created by the maintainer scripts.
Just off the top of my head I see no reason why these files could not be
included in the package empty and
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:54:41PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 08:49:57AM -0400, Jason Rennie wrote:
dpkg -S | --search filename-search-pattern ...
Search for a filename from installed packages.
How is this unclear, exactly?
It
301 - 400 of 1111 matches
Mail list logo
