On 2013-01-16 09:57, Sebastian Humenda wrote:
Andreas Beckmann schrieb am 16.01.2013, 6:34 +0100:
I'm attaching a patch that unifies and simplifies the creation and
removal of $INSTDIR in all three maintainer scripts. Previously there
was a possibility to create/remove INSTDIR several times
Hello,
Andreas Beckmann a...@debian.org schrieb am 26.01.2013, 14:21 +0100:
On 2013-01-16 09:57, Sebastian Humenda wrote:
Andreas Beckmann schrieb am 16.01.2013, 6:34 +0100:
I'm attaching a patch that unifies and simplifies the creation and
removal of $INSTDIR in all three maintainer scripts.
Hello Andreas Beckmann,
Andreas Beckmann schrieb am 16.01.2013, 6:34 +0100:
The HOME=$INSTDIR workaround requires the
$INSTDIR to actually exist, otherwise it will fall back to /root and
create the libreoffice/3 tree there ...
I'm attaching a patch that unifies and simplifies the creation and
On 2013-01-16 09:57, Sebastian Humenda wrote:
But there is still an unowned file being left after purge:
Can this one simply be eleted in a postrm-script?
I think this is some central addon registry from libreoffice and I'm not
sure how to handle this properly. Just deleting it seems to be
Followup-For: Bug #679717
Hi,
unopkg can be really nasty :-) The HOME=$INSTDIR workaround requires the
$INSTDIR to actually exist, otherwise it will fall back to /root and
create the libreoffice/3 tree there ...
I'm attaching a patch that unifies and simplifies the creation and
removal of
On 2012-07-02 08:00, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
Please check the package at:
http://crustulus.de/accessodf_0.1-1.2_all.deb
Has the same problem.
The postinst/postrm code is the problem. unopkg has nasty side effects
... please see the libreoffice-common maintainer scripts how they solve
the
On 2012-07-02 06:34, Sebastian Humenda wrote:
# apt-file show accessodf /tmp/files; \ for f in $(cat
/tmp/files); do; if [ -f $f ]; then; echo 'found'; fi; do (zsh
code) [and no output]
That does not work for file sthat get created during the installation
but are not owned by the package.
Hello,
Andreas Beckmann deb...@abeckmann.de schrieb am 01.07.2012, 1:59 +0200:
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package left unowned files on
the system after purge, which is a violation of policy 6.8 (or 10.8):
[...]
Was this package built in an up-to-date clean sid chroot?
Leaving
Package: accessodf
Version: 0.1-1.1
Severity: important
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package left unowned files on
the system after purge, which is a violation of policy 6.8 (or 10.8):
9 matches
Mail list logo