Hi,
I was looking at the inn2 upload for an unblock, but...
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 10:08 +, Nick Leverton wrote:
Herewith the debdiff in the hope it makes reviewing easier - meant to
append it previously, sorry.
+dpkg-maintscript-helper rm_conffile /etc/news/motd.news 2.5.3-1~ package --
Hi Russ,
Couldn't we install them as ${PATHETC}/motd.innd.sample and
${PATHETC}/motd.nnrpd.sample or should they be in a separate path?
In the latter case, would the ${PATHETC}/samples directory be fine?
Looking at the files, they're mostly documentation for the facility. I'm
wondering
tag 690128 +patch
thanks
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:42:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Marco, do you want to handle this update? I'm happy to help here, but
don't want to tromp on you if you'd rather take care of it.
Herewith the debdiff in the hope it makes reviewing easier - meant to
append
On Nov 28, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Marco, do you want to handle this update? I'm happy to help here, but
don't want to tromp on you if you'd rather take care of it.
Yes. I would appreciate if you could list any other patches that you
think should be backported to the wheezy
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 28, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Marco, do you want to handle this update? I'm happy to help here, but
don't want to tromp on you if you'd rather take care of it.
Yes. I would appreciate if you could list any other patches that you
think
I've prepared a fix for this along the lines I suggested. It proved
awkward to choose between mv_conffile and rm_conffile due to the
multi-stage nature of maintainer scripts, so I ended up using rm_conffile
and inserting some code in the postinst script to capture the dpkg-bak
file and rename it
Julien ÉLIE jul...@trigofacile.com writes:
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with this, and wonder if INN should change
its upstream behavior to install a sample in a path other than the one
used by innd and nnrpd.
That would also be fine, yes.
Couldn't we install them as
Nick Leverton n...@leverton.org writes:
I've prepared a fix for this along the lines I suggested. It proved
awkward to choose between mv_conffile and rm_conffile due to the
multi-stage nature of maintainer scripts, so I ended up using
rm_conffile and inserting some code in the postinst
Hi Russ,
With current newsreaders the motd is just annoying.
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with this, and wonder if INN should change its
upstream behavior to install a sample in a path other than the one used by
innd and nnrpd.
That would also be fine, yes.
Couldn't we install them as
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:03:58PM +0100, Julien ÉLIE wrote:
Hi Nick,
We seem to have two things going on here:
motd.innd is to be renamed to motd.nnrpd (by a means yet to be agreed);
Do you mean motd.news (used by INN = 2.5.2) is to be renamed to
motd.nnrpd (used by INN = 2.5.3)?
Hi Nick,
I believe something should be done in the 2.5.3 Debian package:
motd.innd and motd.nnrpd should be installed in the /etc/news
directory!
I would disagree on that one. INN itself does not install them, they are
only there as examples for an admin who wants to use them.
No, INN
Hi Julien,
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 09:46:13PM +0100, Julien ÉLIE wrote:
No, INN installs both motd.innd and motd.nnrpd in /etc/news.
Have a look at site/Makefile in the INN upstream package:
PATH_MOTD_INND= ${PATHETC}/motd.innd
PATH_MOTD_NNRPD =
On Nov 25, Nick Leverton n...@leverton.org wrote:
Myself I still don't see the point of installing an motd file that says,
effectively, this is a default so disregard it. But I think we will
have to leave that point for Marco to decide on once Wheezy is released.
With hindsight, I think that
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 25, Nick Leverton n...@leverton.org wrote:
Myself I still don't see the point of installing an motd file that
says, effectively, this is a default so disregard it. But I think we
will have to leave that point for Marco to decide on once Wheezy is
We seem to have two things going on here:
motd.innd is to be renamed to motd.nnrpd (by a means yet to be agreed);
Under the name motd.nnrpd it is no longer a conffile in the new package
(as it is no longer shipped but it is used if present).
Incidentally Russ Alberry reckons that the feature
Hi Nick,
We seem to have two things going on here:
motd.innd is to be renamed to motd.nnrpd (by a means yet to be agreed);
Do you mean motd.news (used by INN = 2.5.2) is to be renamed to
motd.nnrpd (used by INN = 2.5.3)?
motd.innd does not exist in INN 2.5.2.
Under the name motd.nnrpd
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:41:15 +0200, Julien ÉLIE wrote:
/etc/news/motd.nnrpd and /etc/news/motd.innd are two new conf files
shipped with INN 2.5.3.
/etc/news/motd.news is no longer used.
During a fresh install, motd.nnrpd and motd.innd are the two files shipped
in the inn2 tarball.
During
Package: inn2
Version: 2.5.3-1
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package deletes a conffile
during the upgrade from squeeze to wheezy, debsums reports an error
afterwards:
1m24.8s ERROR: FAIL: debsums reports
On 2012-10-10 12:37, Julien ÉLIE wrote:
The file /etc/news/motd.news is renamed to /etc/news/motd.nnrpd by the
innupgrade script shipped by upstream.
Should this renaming by upstream be marked as a removal in the
maintainter scripts?
/etc/news/motd.nnrpd is no longer shipped as a conffile?
Hi Andreas,
1m24.8s ERROR: FAIL: debsums reports modifications inside the chroot:
debsums: missing file /etc/news/motd.news (from inn2 package)
I couldn't find the deletion in the maintainer scripts, so it's probably
done by something something that is run from the maintainer scripts.
As
Hi Andreas,
The file /etc/news/motd.news is renamed to /etc/news/motd.nnrpd by the
innupgrade script shipped by upstream.
Should this renaming by upstream be marked as a removal in the
maintainter scripts?
/etc/news/motd.nnrpd is no longer shipped as a conffile?
/etc/news/motd.nnrpd and
21 matches
Mail list logo
