Copying the comment i made to the bug report in debian:
The problem here is that the package automatically configures inetd when the
user enable the
"server". Splitting into two different packages as suggested in the bug
thread on ubuntu makes no sense because the server part actually is none
** Changed in: gwhois (Debian)
Status: Unknown => New
--
gwhois depends on inetd
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/309803
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-b...@lists.ubuntu.com
http
Wouldn't a better solution be splintting the debconf, and all the
inetd/xinetd bits to a seperate, possibly virtual package, and making
that depend on super server?
That way people who want the server part get the client as well, but
those who just want the client don't get the server?
--
gwhois
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #513304
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=513304
** Also affects: gwhois (Debian) via
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=513304
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
gwhois depends on inetd
https://bugs.launchpa
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 13:27 +, Jacob Peddicord wrote:
> James:
>
> Thanks for the response. I'll file a Debian bug when I return from
> classes today to see what the maintainer thinks. However, in the
> meantime, would it be suitable to go with the most recent solution but
> without the templa
James:
Thanks for the response. I'll file a Debian bug when I return from
classes today to see what the maintainer thinks. However, in the
meantime, would it be suitable to go with the most recent solution but
without the template/translation changes, and then merge/sync the Debian
version when it
Hi,
Thanks for working on this.
I would much rather the Debian maintainer got a chance to look at this first.
Not least because your changes change the debconf template, and so getting
translations of that would be important. Would you file a bug against the Debian
package and describe your propo
> Is this a feasible solution?
Yup, seems OK.
regards
Hadmut
--
gwhois depends on inetd
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/309803
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-b...@lists.ubuntu.com
h
I was originally going to have debconf set a question default depending
on whether or not an inetd was installed, but ran across a roadblock:
the package can't tell if an inetd will be installed if it is being
installed the same time as gwhois, since the config is ran before
unpacking.
So, the deb
Hi,
even if you choose to not use the inetd, the package dependency enforces
an inetd to be installed. The dependency should be turned into a
recommendation.
regards
Hadmut
--
gwhois depends on inetd
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/309803
You received this bug notification because you are a mem
Hi,
If the package no longer depends on an inetd then it can't rely on
"update-inetd"
being available, so the postinst and prerm need to be updated to check for the
presence of update-inetd before calling it.
The package ships a debconf question asking whether to use an inetd. Is that
no suffici
Dropped the Depends on both of the mentioned packages to Recommends,
though is this the ideal solution? The package itself looks to be just a
single combined client-server script, so I guess it can't really be
separated.
** Changed in: gwhois (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
** Attachment
12 matches
Mail list logo
