Hi,
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 21:42:34 +0100, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 18:43 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
[]
I have question which is directly related: shouldn't a package own and
declare all the configuration files that it uses, even if it
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 18:43 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
[]
I have question which is directly related: shouldn't a package own and
declare all the configuration files that it uses, even if it doesn't
install or modify it?
[...]
No. Not all configuration files
I have two systems. Both track unstable, and have package
locales at version 2.0.16.
On one system, package locales owns /etc/default/locale, on the other,
it doesn't. Should the file be owned by locales or not?
Could the situation arise by upgrades? One system is 4 years old
(upgraded
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 09:43 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
I have two systems. Both track unstable, and have package
locales at version 2.0.16.
On one system, package locales owns /etc/default/locale, on the other,
it doesn't. Should the file be owned by locales or not?
I have question
On 2008-11-09 16:43 +0100, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
I have two systems. Both track unstable, and have package
locales at version 2.0.16.
On one system, package locales owns /etc/default/locale, on the other,
it doesn't. Should the file be owned by locales or not?
It shouldn't, but on my
Steve M. Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have two systems. Both track unstable, and have package
locales at version 2.0.16.
On one system, package locales owns /etc/default/locale, on the other,
it doesn't. Should the file be owned by locales or not?
Could the situation arise by
Frank Lin PIAT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[]
I have question which is directly related: shouldn't a package own and
declare all the configuration files that it uses, even if it doesn't
install or modify it?
[...]
No. Not all configuration files can be managed as dpkg conffiles.
cu andreas
7 matches
Mail list logo
