Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony Consider, eg, #90676.
What is the problem here?
If a program tries to read an input from STDIN, then IMHO it is not
debconf compliant, as you will still have problems with automatic
installations.
This is just one bug I have
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, VALETTE Eric wrote:
I have been discussing quite a lot on different debian mailing list on a
way to automate debian installation. The final and almost unfiform
answer was to use debconf in non-interactive mode.
The technical reason is that due to use of tty the following
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 04:35:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
It's some work for a maintainer to convert a package that simply uses
things like cat EOM for interaction with the user to debconf - and if
the maintainer is for any reason not willing to convert his package (he
might even refuse a
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 04:35:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
If debconf isn't good enough that everyone's not using it voluntarily
(lilo has been converted *from* debconf), then the obvious thing to do
is to improve debconf, not try to force
reassign 122817 debian-policy
severity 122817 wishlist
thanks
On 7 Dec 2001, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0
Severity: important
Tag: patch
First of all, I'm setting this bug as important due to the fact that, even
if it works as is some packages
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 122817 debian-policy
Bug#122817: base-files: Please provide profile.d hook in /etc/profile
Bug reassigned from package `base-files' to `debian-policy'.
severity 122817 wishlist
Bug#122817: base-files: Please provide profile.d hook in
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 02:20:19PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
The profile.d thing has been suggested several times (see the archived
bugs for the base-files package) and I have always rejected it because
it is against the spirit of policy when it says:
(..)
If we followed this, no
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 12:19:51AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
To pseudo-quote Anthony Towns on this one: policy is not a stick to
hit lazy maintainers with.
Oh, come now. *Anything* can be a stick to hit lazy maintainers with.
Just so long as they get beaten.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
You are wrong here. Sample:
- I want to provide a package with a lot of useful bash functions/aliases w/o
changing any program
Write scripts and put them in /usr/local/bin.
- I want my users to have a
That is *completely* the wrong attitude. We're all volunteers; we're not
here to be forced to do anything.
Cheers,
aj, wondering if he's going to have to do the must rant yet again
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save
Massimo Dal Zotto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wrote an automatic installer (which worked) for slink, but I had to
spend weeks to adapt the postinst scripts of debian packages to it,
and I didn't want to repeat all the work for potato and woody.
This was my experience, too.
In my opinion now
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Massimo Dal Zotto wrote:
In my opinion now that we have debconf we should mandate its use by
policy.
No. We. Should. Not.
If you want every package to use debconf, that's fine and wonderful. Go
make a list of the ones that don't, write patches so that
12 matches
Mail list logo
