On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 07:18:19PM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Santiago Vila wrote:
But we can leave the whole business of creating SSL certificates to
the end user, and at the *same* time avoid useless UCF prompts on
upgrades.
If 10-ssl.conf exists and disables
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Santiago Vila wrote:
For umpteenth time: The file 10-ssl.conf does not have to be included
in dovecot-core.deb!
Try
dpkg -S /root/.profile
in your system.
I've reopened this is as a wishlist. Right now I need to make sure a
never version of dovecot than -6 gets into
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
reopen 773237
severity wishlist
thanks
Thanks for reopening, but policy says this:
Packages should try to minimize the amount of prompting they need to
do, and they should ensure that the user will only ever be asked each
question
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 06:40:55AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Santiago Vila wrote:
For umpteenth time: The file 10-ssl.conf does not have to be included
in dovecot-core.deb!
Try
dpkg -S /root/.profile
in your system.
I've reopened this is as a wishlist.
Quoting policy:
These two styles of configuration file handling must not be mixed, for
that way lies madness: `dpkg' will ask about overwriting the file
every time the package is upgraded.
No it won't because after -6 the file will be managed by ucf. [...]
You are right
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014, Santiago Vila wrote:
My objection is that policy says that the conffile mechanism is only
appropriate for files having a default that may work for everybody,
and the rationale is that if most people need to modify it, then most
people will get prompted on upgrades over and
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 09:14:11AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014, Santiago Vila wrote:
My objection is that policy says that the conffile mechanism is only
appropriate for files having a default that may work for everybody,
and the rationale is that if most people need to
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014, Santiago Vila wrote:
The only way? That's simply *not* true!
It is perfectly allowed *not* to ship a configuration file inside
the .deb and instead create it in the postinst, only if it does not
exist.
Creating the relevant configuration in postinst is what was broken
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 04:49:18PM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014, Santiago Vila wrote:
The only way? That's simply *not* true!
It is perfectly allowed *not* to ship a configuration file inside
the .deb and instead create it in the postinst, only if it does not
exist.
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014, Santiago Vila wrote:
Creating the relevant configuration in postinst is what was broken in the
first place. That's why I took it out.
Bug number? References?
Oh there have been various complaints about this or that use case for a
long time. Unfortunately a lot of
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 06:10:29PM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014, Santiago Vila wrote:
Creating the relevant configuration in postinst is what was broken in the
first place. That's why I took it out.
Bug number? References?
Oh there have been various complaints
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 06:10:29PM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
[...] it is safest to leave the whole business to the end user [...]
But we can leave the whole business of creating SSL certificates to
the end user, and at the *same* time avoid useless UCF prompts on
upgrades.
You seem to imply
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Santiago Vila wrote:
Sorry but I don't follow your line of reasoning.
In those examples, the file 10-ssl.conf has SSL certificates by
default.
The point is that the code to do that was broken.
But I'm not proposing that the default 10-ssl.conf has SSL enabled
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Santiago Vila wrote:
But we can leave the whole business of creating SSL certificates to
the end user, and at the *same* time avoid useless UCF prompts on
upgrades.
If 10-ssl.conf exists and disables SSL, then upgraders with a previously
working SSL configuration will
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 06:50:55PM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Santiago Vila wrote:
So: Why can't dovecot-core create the *current* file (the one *not*
having SSL enabled) in the postinst instead of using UCF? Please don't
tell me that you already tried that, because you
reopen 773237
severity wishlist
thanks
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Santiago Vila wrote:
That is quite easy indeed:
* The file is not included in the package.deb.
* The very first time the package is installed, the file is created
from the default by postinst.
* On upgrades, you do nothing at all
16 matches
Mail list logo
