Hi,
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:13:59AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software?
How can they do so?
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
unless you think that it's better for the installer package to spit
out a .deb somewhere which you then have to install separately,
which seems to me like a step backwards in convenience.
Depends, generating a deb has some bright sides: 'dpkg -S' and
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
At this point, the question is not how to do it. I can think about 30
ways to do it, while I'm surely not the expert here.
I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing
one of those ways. Go on. It's my honest belief
Ryan Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:13:59AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
not build a proper debian package when
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
OK. How does one create an installer package which correctly does the
following:
* creates a Debian package for the thing it's installing
the installer contains a diff and dsc, downloads the orig source,
then builds a .deb
* installs that package
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:17:13AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapot? :
I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing
one of those ways. Go on. It's my honest belief that it can't be done
correctly; I'm open to hearing ways in which
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:24:07AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
* installs that package in such a way that it's registered in dpkg's
database
do the install in the background when the dpkg DB area is unlocked
Yuck! Please, no! Error handling?
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:37:04AM -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:13:59AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
not build a proper debian package
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:17:13AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapot? :
I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing
one of those ways. Go on. It's my honest belief that it can't be done
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:17:13AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapot? :
I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing
one of those ways. Go on. It's my
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
It could be something like debian/track where 'track' is a list of files
to be tracked by this package as if they were contained within it when
it was built (even though they are actually downloaded during the package's
postinst or by another
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
I did not noticed clear answer about my proposal about the non-free
software installer in contrib.
It might help if you posted a summary of the thread.
Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
not build a
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software?
How can they do so? Installing a package with 'dpkg -i' in the postinst
of another package isn't
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software?
How can they do so? Installing a package with
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:08:34PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapot? :
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
not build a proper debian package when installing
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:08:34PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapot? :
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
not build
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:42:46PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
[Please stop sending me private copies of list mail.]
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapot? :
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:08:34PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapot? :
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at
Colin Watson wrote:
? I think that's a minimal specification for a correct installer package
which does its work by creating Debian packages; unless you think that
it's better for the installer package to spit out a .deb somewhere which
you then have to install separately, which seems to me like a
18 matches
Mail list logo
