Hi Tong,
Replying since I am CC'ed, look below :-
On 12/11/21 10:20 PM, Tong Sun wrote:
Thanks, one more thing,
The dbab can upgrade from oldstable (Buster) just fine, but I'm trying
to remove the conffile files no longer exist since then
(dbab_1.3.2-2),
| If the conffile has not been
ight.
>
> Thanks, one more thing,
>
> The dbab can upgrade from oldstable (Buster) just fine, but I'm trying
> to remove the conffile files no longer exist since then
> (dbab_1.3.2-2),
>
> | If the conffile has not been shipped for several versions, and you
> are now modif
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 4:07 PM Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 01:56:26PM -0500, Tong Sun wrote:
> > right?
> Right.
> > ...
> > right?
> Right.
Thanks, one more thing,
The dbab can upgrade from oldstable (Buster) just fine, but I'm tryin
On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 01:56:26PM -0500, Tong Sun wrote:
> > > But I was told to "using rm_conffile directive from .maintscript file"
> > This is wrong. rm_conffile is only for cases when a conffile is no longer
> > shipped. This is explained in dpkg-maintscript-he
>
> """
> I see the postrm has
>
> /etc/dnsmasq.d/dbab.*
>
> which I take it would have to be dbab-map.*
> """
That the 1.3.3-1 postrm, and now the package is at 1.5.7, many
versions after that. I.e., it was fixed a long time ago, and I pr
I'm not going to make an upload a package for this.
Here are the instructions I meant and I don't know what can be clearer
than that short of an actual debdiff:
"""
I see the postrm has
/etc/dnsmasq.d/dbab.*
which I take it would have to be dbab-map.*
"""
> OK
howing how it should be done please?
It is not that I didn't try my best but the case is I've already tried
my best to guess what the above means but it seems I guessed wrong
each time. Thus I need detailed help, those few words only get me
going around the circles.
OK, let's start from the beginning:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 10:19:44AM -0500, pkgoyq@neverbox.com wrote:
> > > > You should remove them manually in postrm, but only on
> > > > purge.
> > >
> > But now you will need to also recover from a bad state
> > left by upgrades to 1.5.7-1.
>
> Ah... it is getting more and more
On Friday, 3 December 2021 02:46:43 AEDT Tong Sun wrote:
>
> grep: /etc/dbab/dbab.list-: No such file or directory
> cat: /etc/dbab/dbab.addr: No such file or directory
>
>
> They should be there but I have no idea why they are not.
Note that this isn't just about
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 1:05 AM Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 11:29:58PM -0500, Tong Sun wrote:
> > > You should remove them manually in postrm, but only on
> > > purge.
> >
> But now you will need to also recover from a bad state
> left by upgrades to 1.5.7-1.
Ah... it is
On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 11:29:58PM -0500, Tong Sun wrote:
> > You should remove them manually in postrm, but only on
> > purge.
>
> How to do that please?
The correct way, it seems, would be to follow the suggestion in the
original bug report and fix the "rm -f /etc/dnsmasq.d/dbab.*" line in
the
On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 11:09:35PM -0500, Tong Sun wrote:
> OK, I want to remove all conffile files and reinstall the new ones
> when doing package upgrade, as there isn't much user intervention to
> those conffile files. All are provided by the package.
Then they shouldn't be
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 11:09 PM Tong Sun
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 10:46 AM Tong Sun wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm having problem with my conffile files, see
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=995769
> >
> >
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 10:46 AM Tong Sun wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm having problem with my conffile files, see
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=995769
>
> I.e.,
>
>
> grep: /etc/dbab/dbab.list-: No such file or directory
> cat: /etc/dbab/dba
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 10:46:43AM -0500, Tong Sun wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having problem with my conffile files, see
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=995769
>
> I.e.,
>
>
> grep: /etc/dbab/dbab.list-: No such file or directory
> cat: /et
Hi,
I'm having problem with my conffile files, see
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=995769
I.e.,
grep: /etc/dbab/dbab.list-: No such file or directory
cat: /etc/dbab/dbab.addr: No such file or directory
They should be there but I have no idea why
Hi,
Can I use rm_conffile to remove a (conffile) directory?
I checked the man page but am still not too sure about that.
thx
ll
because I got this warning
dpkg-deb: building package 'libvscphelper' in
'../libvscphelper_13.1.0-1_amd64.deb'.
dpkg-deb: warning: conffile name '/etc/vscp/vscpd.conf' is duplicated
dpkg-deb: warning: ignoring 1 warning about the control file(s)
dpkg-deb: building package 'vscpd' in '../vs
On 2018-07-16 10:11, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:03:13AM +0200, Ake Hedman wrote:
>> Packages built are here http://vscp.org/downloads/
>>
>> debian folder is here
>> https://github.com/grodansparadis/vscp-install-deb/tree/master/debian_orig
> Please publish a
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:03:13AM +0200, Ake Hedman wrote:
> Packages built are here http://vscp.org/downloads/
>
> debian folder is here
> https://github.com/grodansparadis/vscp-install-deb/tree/master/debian_orig
Please publish a buildable source package.
Or at least the build log.
--
WBR,
On 2018-07-16 09:52, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 09:47:09AM +0200, Ake Hedman wrote:
So I make a control file for the different packages vscpd, vscpworks,
libvscphelper, libvscphelper-dev. Use a standard rules file. Add a
conffiles to the vscpd
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 09:47:09AM +0200, Ake Hedman wrote:
> >> So I make a control file for the different packages vscpd, vscpworks,
> >> libvscphelper, libvscphelper-dev. Use a standard rules file. Add a
> >> conffiles to the vscpd package as it needs one and so on.
> >>
>
On 2018-07-16 09:44, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 09:12:38AM +0200, Ake Hedman wrote:
>> So I make a control file for the different packages vscpd, vscpworks,
>> libvscphelper, libvscphelper-dev. Use a standard rules file. Add a
>> conffiles to the vscpd
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 09:12:38AM +0200, Ake Hedman wrote:
> So I make a control file for the different packages vscpd, vscpworks,
> libvscphelper, libvscphelper-dev. Use a standard rules file. Add a
> conffiles to the vscpd package as it needs one and so on.
>
> My
On 2018-07-16 09:06, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 08:56:54AM +0200, Ake Hedman wrote:
So I make a control file for the different packages vscpd, vscpworks,
libvscphelper, libvscphelper-dev. Use a standard rules file. Add a
conffiles to the vscpd package as
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 08:56:54AM +0200, Ake Hedman wrote:
> >> So I make a control file for the different packages vscpd, vscpworks,
> >> libvscphelper, libvscphelper-dev. Use a standard rules file. Add a
> >> conffiles to the vscpd package as it needs one and so on.
> >>
> >> My problem is that
vscphelper-dev missing files: etc/vscp/vscp.conf
dh_install: missing files, aborting
debian/rules:3: recipe for target 'binary' failed
make: *** [binary] Error 25
dpkg-buildpackage: error: fakeroot debian/rules binary subprocess
returned exit status 2
The conffile is really available
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 08:22:25AM +0200, Ake Hedman wrote:
> So I make a control file for the different packages vscpd, vscpworks,
> libvscphelper, libvscphelper-dev. Use a standard rules file. Add a
> conffiles to the vscpd package as it needs one and so on.
>
> My problem is that I get
Hi,
I am working on a Debian package for VSCP (http://www.vscp.org) a
framework for m2m/Iot for which I also am the maintainer. The package
consist of a number of binaries and a library and I want to make three
packages, one for a daemon and some other binaries, one for a graphical
application
On 04.03.14 08:58:58, Dominique Dumont wrote:
On Monday 03 March 2014 17:56:38 Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote:
The part undo damage I do not understand. From what I understand
dpkg compares the new config with the existing one. So to upgrade from
stable properly I would have to replace my new
On Monday 03 March 2014 17:56:38 Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote:
The part undo damage I do not understand. From what I understand
dpkg compares the new config with the existing one. So to upgrade from
stable properly I would have to replace my new config with the
identical to the existing one,
On 2 March 2014 21:45, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Dariusz Dwornikowski dariusz.dwornikow...@cs.put.poznan.pl writes:
The previous maintainer of maradns modified conffiles in postinst
(dynamically checked for the maradns user id and filled
/etc/maradns/mararc with this info). This
, you will have to:
* stop delivering mararc in /etc/maradns/ (i.e. no more conffile problem)
* manage mararc file in postinst, i.e. update mararc on package upgrade and
create a fresh marac on new installation.
The last point is not easy to get right.
For what it's worth, I'm trying to handle
in /etc/maradns/ (i.e. no more conffile problem)
* manage mararc file in postinst, i.e. update mararc on package upgrade and
create a fresh marac on new installation.
The last point is not easy to get right.
For what it's worth, I'm trying to handle lcdproc configuration this way
(while providing
On Monday 03 March 2014 16:23:28 Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote:
I agree this is a nice solution with a patch, I will integrate it for sure.
However what should be done in such situation with bug 740332 ?
Should I close it with the new release?
ok, I did not realize that the upgrade test is done
On 3 March 2014 16:41, Dominique Dumont d...@debian.org wrote:
On Monday 03 March 2014 16:23:28 Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote:
I agree this is a nice solution with a patch, I will integrate it for sure.
However what should be done in such situation with bug 740332 ?
Should I close it with the
, Debian thinks that conffile
is *modified* because the one that user has was in fact generated in
postinst before. So dpkg prompts for a user action how to handle
config file replacement...
I am a little bit stuck here. I can see that I have to treat
/etc/maradns/mararc as conffile because
Dariusz Dwornikowski dariusz.dwornikow...@cs.put.poznan.pl writes:
The previous maintainer of maradns modified conffiles in postinst
(dynamically checked for the maradns user id and filled
/etc/maradns/mararc with this info). This obviously rendered RC bug of
violation of policy 10.7.3 [2]. I
Hi,
after Paul was so kind to show me some sample code to rename an
ucf-conffile, I am now faced with the task of deleting an ucf-conffile
with a package update.
My first (untested) approach would be:
FILENAME=/etc/foo/bar.conf
if [ -e $FILENAME ]; then
ucf --debconf-ok /dev/null $FILENAME
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 10:38:25PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
On 02-07-13 21:42, Marc Haber wrote:
Is this really as easy as
if [ -e /etc/powerdns/pdns.d/pdns.local ]; then
if [ -e /etc/powerdns/pdns.d/pdns.local.conf ]; then
*bomb out*
exit 1
fi
ucfr --purge
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:26:39AM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
On 03-07-13 09:58, Marc Haber wrote:
Did you on purpose decide not to bomb out if the new file does already
exist?
Yes. In my case it would mean that the admin already created a file with
the proposed new name, AND left the old
Hi,
the PowerDNS packages have shipped configuration in
/etc/powerdns/pdns.d/foo, with the pdns.d functionality patched in by
Debian. Upstream has recently followed our wishlist request to
implement include-dir functionality in PowerDNS proper.
However, they require all files in an include-dir
On 02-07-13 21:42, Marc Haber wrote:
Hi,
the PowerDNS packages have shipped configuration in
/etc/powerdns/pdns.d/foo, with the pdns.d functionality patched in by
Debian. Upstream has recently followed our wishlist request to
implement include-dir functionality in PowerDNS proper.
Hi
Can someone explain the following meaning of the lintian error message:
file-in-etc-not-marked-as-conffile
what should a .conf file under /etc have special inorder to be 'conffile'
?
thanks
Zvi Dubitzky
Email:d...@il.ibm.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 07:59:45PM +0300, Zvi Dubitzky wrote:
Hi
Can someone explain the following meaning of the lintian error message:
file-in-etc-not-marked-as-conffile
what should a .conf file under /etc have special inorder to be 'conffile'
?
thanks
Zvi Dubitzky
Email:d
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 25. August 2010, Zvi Dubitzky wrote:
Can someone explain the following meaning of the lintian error message:
file-in-etc-not-marked-as-conffile
run lintian -I
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Some time ago, the extlinux package has renamed a conffile:
/etc/kernel/post{inst,rm}.d/extlinux - /etc/kernel/post{inst,rm}.d/zz-extlinux.
That is, a zz- prefix was added to basename.
Indeed, http://packages.debian.org/sid/i386/extlinux/filelist mentions only
zz-extlinux. I have the latest
Hi,
I have a package with a config file that is created by postinst, and I
would like to convert this file into a conffile that is handled by dpkg.
Is there a way to achieve this in a way so that dpkg will silently replace
the postinst-created default version with the new conffile? I expect
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:37:14PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Hi,
I have a package with a config file that is created by postinst, and I
would like to convert this file into a conffile that is handled by dpkg.
Is there a way to achieve this in a way so that dpkg will silently replace
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:26:29PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
From: Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Symlink conffile?
I apologize for hijacking a thread, I forgot to remove the
In-Reply-To:-Header from my outgoing message.
Greetings
Marc
Hi,
given the case that a conffile was moved from /etc/conffile to
/etc/package/conffile. I would now like to include a transition
symlink to my package.
When I go the easy way, just including the symlink in the package,
debhelper does not mark the link a conffile, and every /etc/conffile
En réponse à Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Darren Salt [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
You mean /usr/share/doc/tetex-base/remove-oldmaps :-)
Err, yes. And it isn't even executable. That way, I hope to make
people think before typing.
When I use such a script, I like it prints what it is
Darren Salt [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
I demand that Frank Küster may or may not have written...
[snip]
If you happen to have tetex-base installed in sid or sarge and have
continuously updated since woody, you'll find lots of useless *.map files
in /etc/texmf/dvips which are no longer in
I have a package here with a conffile in /etc. I now want to add
debconf abilities and convert the conffile to a debconf-managed
file. I would like to use ucf to provide policy-compliant
configuration file handling.
The problem I have is the package upgrade. dh_installdeb (which
I want to keep
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:02:32PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
- save the conffile in the new preinst to /tmp and use it to seed
the new conffile in the new postinst. The problem here is that
I could potentially override a file in /tmp if I simply cp(1)'d
the file there. Using
also sprach Brian Sutherland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.14.1223 +0200]:
How about installing the config file template into /usr/share/foo
and copying it to the config dir in the postinst? (Policy 10.7.3)
And how am I to preserve the user modifications? I can install
a config file into
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
The problem I have is the package upgrade. dh_installdeb (which
I want to keep using) flags *all* files in /etc as conffiles and
provide no means to exclude patterns. Thus, in order to remove the
file from dpkg's custody, I have to actually *not*
also sprach Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.14.1316 +0200]:
Have you tested this? I think that the file will not be deleted,
because upon upgrade, the old package is only removed, not purged.
Therefore all conffiles stay in /etc.
I was about to reply with of course, but then I tested
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 01:29:40PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
Damn, I don't know what happened earlier, I could have sworn it did
not work.
So the 'leftover' file /etc/foo.conf is never deleted because
version 1 is not purged and version 2 does not contain the file in
the lists file
I have a package here with a conffile in /etc. I now want to add
debconf abilities and convert the conffile to a debconf-managed
file. I would like to use ucf to provide policy-compliant
configuration file handling.
The problem I have is the package upgrade. dh_installdeb (which
I want to keep
also sprach Brian Sutherland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.14.1223 +0200]:
How about installing the config file template into /usr/share/foo
and copying it to the config dir in the postinst? (Policy 10.7.3)
And how am I to preserve the user modifications? I can install
a config file into
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
The problem I have is the package upgrade. dh_installdeb (which
I want to keep using) flags *all* files in /etc as conffiles and
provide no means to exclude patterns. Thus, in order to remove the
file from dpkg's custody, I have to actually *not*
also sprach Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.14.1316 +0200]:
Have you tested this? I think that the file will not be deleted,
because upon upgrade, the old package is only removed, not purged.
Therefore all conffiles stay in /etc.
I was about to reply with of course, but then I tested
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 01:29:40PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
Damn, I don't know what happened earlier, I could have sworn it did
not work.
So the 'leftover' file /etc/foo.conf is never deleted because
version 1 is not purged and version 2 does not contain the file in
the lists file
Hi,
I want to do the following to a configuration file: Ignore all updates
of the conffile inside the .deb (in other words: just keep what's
installed on the system). At the moment this file is marked as
conffile.
The idea is:
- Install the file somewhere else as template (e.g.
/usr/share
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 05:04:54PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
I want to do the following to a configuration file: Ignore all updates
of the conffile inside the .deb (in other words: just keep what's
installed on the system). At the moment this file is marked as
conffile.
If the file stops
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031228 22:25]:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 05:04:54PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
A rather problematic issue is on upgrades from a previous package
where the previous one had it as a conffile. I think about the
following: Just removing this file in the deb
-f. Try it.
You should not be touching anything ending in .dpkg-*. The copy seems
reasonable, but the mv is unnecessary and should be omitted. When the
package is upgraded from a version with the conffile to a version
without the conffile, the actual config file on the system remains
Hi,
I want to do the following to a configuration file: Ignore all updates
of the conffile inside the .deb (in other words: just keep what's
installed on the system). At the moment this file is marked as
conffile.
The idea is:
- Install the file somewhere else as template (e.g.
/usr/share
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 05:04:54PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
I want to do the following to a configuration file: Ignore all updates
of the conffile inside the .deb (in other words: just keep what's
installed on the system). At the moment this file is marked as
conffile.
If the file stops
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031228 22:25]:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 05:04:54PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
A rather problematic issue is on upgrades from a previous package
where the previous one had it as a conffile. I think about the
following: Just removing this file in the deb
-f. Try it.
You should not be touching anything ending in .dpkg-*. The copy seems
reasonable, but the mv is unnecessary and should be omitted. When the
package is upgraded from a version with the conffile to a version
without the conffile, the actual config file on the system remains
In my package suck, I'm planning on changing from a configuration file
that is edited in postinst based on a debconf question to a conffile.
It's for an auxilery script that can use a command line option for
that paramater anyway. Many users would need to edit the file anyway.
Is there anything
In my package suck, I'm planning on changing from a configuration file
that is edited in postinst based on a debconf question to a conffile.
It's for an auxilery script that can use a command line option for
that paramater anyway. Many users would need to edit the file anyway.
Is there anything
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 04:52:09PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
For a complete discusssion see http://bugs.debian.org/183357
Currently the exim4-packages cannot provide /usr/sbin/exim (only
/usr/sbin/exim4) because exim v3's init script up to version 3.36-4 uses
something aequivalent to
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 04:52:09PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
For a complete discusssion see http://bugs.debian.org/183357
Currently the exim4-packages cannot provide /usr/sbin/exim (only
/usr/sbin/exim4) because exim v3's init script up to version 3.36-4 uses
something aequivalent to
Hello,
For a complete discusssion see http://bugs.debian.org/183357
Currently the exim4-packages cannot provide /usr/sbin/exim (only
/usr/sbin/exim4) because exim v3's init script up to version 3.36-4
uses something aequivalent to this to check whether it should do
anything: [ -x /usr/sbin/exim ]
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:58:11PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello, ...
I am preparing a new version of one of my packages, and lintian claims
that :
$ lintian ocaml-base-3.06-1_3.06-16_i386.deb
E: ocaml-base-3.06-1: duplicate-conffile /etc
Hello Sven,
Sven Luther wrote:
I am using debhelper, and i guess one of the debhelpers is responsible
for this. Does anyone have an idea of where this is coming from ?
man debhelper says that for compat mode = 3:
Every file in etc/ is automatically flagged as a conffile by dh_installdeb.
Cheers
Jérôme Marant wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello, ...
I am preparing a new version of one of my packages, and lintian claims
that :
$ lintian ocaml-base-3.06-1_3.06-16_i386.deb
E: ocaml-base-3.06-1: duplicate-conffile /etc/ocaml/ld.conf
And effectively, if i open the .deb, i
David Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Debhelp automaticaly adds every /etc file to conffile.
So, remove this entry from ocaml-base-3.06-1.conffiles.
I've been getting this error too. I just have a conffiles file in my
debian directory. It contains one /etc/some file line. But if I
remove
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello, ...
I am preparing a new version of one of my packages, and lintian claims
that :
$ lintian ocaml-base-3.06-1_3.06-16_i386.deb
E: ocaml-base-3.06-1: duplicate-conffile /etc/ocaml/ld.conf
And effectively, if i open the .deb, i see that /etc
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:58:11PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello, ...
I am preparing a new version of one of my packages, and lintian claims
that :
$ lintian ocaml-base-3.06-1_3.06-16_i386.deb
E: ocaml-base-3.06-1: duplicate-conffile /etc
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:31:10PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Hello, ...
I am preparing a new version of one of my packages, and lintian claims
that :
$ lintian ocaml-base-3.06-1_3.06-16_i386.deb
E: ocaml-base-3.06-1: duplicate-conffile /etc/ocaml/ld.conf
And effectively, if i open
Hello Sven,
Sven Luther wrote:
I am using debhelper, and i guess one of the debhelpers is responsible
for this. Does anyone have an idea of where this is coming from ?
man debhelper says that for compat mode = 3:
Every file in etc/ is automatically flagged as a conffile by dh_installdeb.
Cheers
Jérôme Marant wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello, ...
I am preparing a new version of one of my packages, and lintian claims
that :
$ lintian ocaml-base-3.06-1_3.06-16_i386.deb
E: ocaml-base-3.06-1: duplicate-conffile /etc/ocaml/ld.conf
And effectively, if i open
David Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Debhelp automaticaly adds every /etc file to conffile.
So, remove this entry from ocaml-base-3.06-1.conffiles.
I've been getting this error too. I just have a conffiles file in my
debian directory. It contains one /etc/some file line. But if I
remove
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 22:04:47 -0400, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 04:05:40PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Are you missing Marc's point? What do you advise him to do, when his
upstream changed the file format?
Inform the user about the change, and optionally
itz Are you missing Marc's point? What do you advise him to do, when
itz his upstream changed the file format?
Matt Inform the user about the change, and optionally provide a
Matt conversion script.
Does that mean you'd rather leave the package in a broken state than
infringe on policy?
In
? Assuming that you are
shipping a working conffile in the new format (and you should be), dpkg will
prompt the user about the changes. It is the user's responsibility to merge
any changes that they want from newer conffiles, and they are given
notification about them automatically.
You have
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Inform the user about the change, and optionally provide a conversion
script.
OK. So I will be shipping a package that will break existing and
working setups, while handling this automatically is perfectly
possible.
What about upgrading inform the user
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 11:33:51PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
itz Are you missing Marc's point? What do you advise him to do, when
itz his upstream changed the file format?
Matt Inform the user about the change, and optionally provide a
Matt conversion script.
Does that mean you'd
On 26 Oct 2002 13:37:20 +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Inform the user about the change, and optionally provide a conversion
script.
OK. So I will be shipping a package that will break existing and
working setups, while handling this
will it break existing and working setups? Assuming that you are
shipping a working conffile in the new format (and you should be),
Sure.
dpkg will prompt the user about the changes.
With the default option being to keep the old config file in old
format, breaking the package.
It is the user's
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 22:04:47 -0400, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 04:05:40PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Are you missing Marc's point? What do you advise him to do, when his
upstream changed the file format?
Inform the user about the change, and optionally
itz Are you missing Marc's point? What do you advise him to do, when
itz his upstream changed the file format?
Matt Inform the user about the change, and optionally provide a
Matt conversion script.
Does that mean you'd rather leave the package in a broken state than
infringe on policy?
In
? Assuming that you are
shipping a working conffile in the new format (and you should be), dpkg will
prompt the user about the changes. It is the user's responsibility to merge
any changes that they want from newer conffiles, and they are given
notification about them automatically.
You have
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Inform the user about the change, and optionally provide a conversion
script.
OK. So I will be shipping a package that will break existing and
working setups, while handling this automatically is perfectly
possible.
What about upgrading inform the user
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 11:33:51PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
itz Are you missing Marc's point? What do you advise him to do, when
itz his upstream changed the file format?
Matt Inform the user about the change, and optionally provide a
Matt conversion script.
Does that mean you'd
On 26 Oct 2002 13:37:20 +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Inform the user about the change, and optionally provide a conversion
script.
OK. So I will be shipping a package that will break existing and
working setups, while handling this
1 - 100 of 197 matches
Mail list logo
