The previous discussion on this bug didn't reach a final consensus on
wording, but I still believe we have a consensus that this is the right
general direction. Here's an updated patch that includes the permission
suggested by Steve Langasek for maintainer scripts to abort for
high-priority
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 12:51:33 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org writes:
what does this change mean for essential packages that want to prompt
the user when debconf isn't available? E.g. libc6.postinst tries to use
debconf, and if that's not available and
Hi!
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:34:32 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm looking for seconds or further discussion if people don't believe that
this is the right direction to go.
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index af00c0e..3f6b82d 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -3557,15
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:34 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The previous discussion on this bug didn't reach a final consensus on
wording, but I still believe we have a consensus that this is the right
general direction. Here's an updated patch that includes the permission
suggested by Steve
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 09:34:32AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm looking for seconds or further discussion if people don't believe that
this is the right direction to go.
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index af00c0e..3f6b82d 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -3557,15
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
The previous discussion on this bug didn't reach a final consensus on
wording, but I still believe we have a consensus that this is the right
general direction. Here's an updated patch that includes the permission
suggested by Steve Langasek for
Russ Allbery wrote:
Vincent Danjean vincent.danj...@ens-lyon.org writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm also not sure that I was right in my previous message about using
the exit status of tty, since it still does make sense to prompt if run
via ssh host aptitude upgrade. But I don't know how to
Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm also not sure that I was right in my previous message about using the
exit status of tty, since it still does make sense to prompt if run via
ssh host aptitude upgrade. But I don't know how to detect that case as
different from a truly non-interactive install.
I had
Vincent Danjean vincent.danj...@ens-lyon.org writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm also not sure that I was right in my previous message about using
the exit status of tty, since it still does make sense to prompt if run
via ssh host aptitude upgrade. But I don't know how to detect that
case as
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 19:43:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but essential
packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd like to put
it to bed. Here's
Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 19:43:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but
essential packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 19:43 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but essential
packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd like to put
it to bed. Here's proposed
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 07:43:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but essential
packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd like to put
it to bed. Here's
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 07:43:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but
essential packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while
I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but essential
packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd like to put
it to bed. Here's proposed wording. I'm looking for feedback or seconds.
diff --git
Notice that packages requiring TTY during installations will nowadays
fail to install in debian-installer (see #282147), buildd chroots,
and will hang piuparts testing.
Therefor packages using tty in maintainer scripts are already
de facto buggy in common debian usage situations.
The TTY
16 matches
Mail list logo
