On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 02:12:34PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed to install.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:27:14PM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:
> If I try to install it in normal system, I'll be prompted to confirm if I
> really want to replace sysvinit, with default answer 'no' ('false'). But if
> I try it in a limited environment like piuparts or pbuilder chroot, debconf
> will always skip the question and continue with the default. So it exits
> with status 1.
>
> I think it's reasonable to fail here. 'False' is a safe default. And it works
> properly in normal systems.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 07:55:36PM +0100, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> Hi, this is by intention, I reverted the NMU. runit-run should only be
> installed if actively confirmed again. For non-interactive and
> automated installations either debconf should be installed and
> preseeded, or no debconf installed any `echo y` written to stdin.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:14:41PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> That's all fine and dandy, but still, the installation of the package should
> succeed, even if "yes" is neither preseed or otherwise indicated.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 04:03:14PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> found 562945 1.0.0
> found 562945 1.1.1
> notfound 562945 1.1.1+nmu1
> found 562945 1.1.2
> severity 562945 serious
> thanks
> actually, policy says s/should/must/
Hi Holger, there seem to be different opinions on the design of the
package. I have reasons why I do it the way it is, you seem to have a
different opinion and think it must be done differently. But you
haven't convinced me yet.
I'm very sorry if I misread policy and did something wrong. Can you
please properly justify the bug report and the RC severity by quoting
policy where you think the package violates it?
Thanks, Gerrit.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
