[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 15.01.99 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Ian Jackson wrote:
Santiago Vila writes (Bug#29770: Policy contradicts itself about
/etc/aliases): ...
Policy says:
A package may not modify a configuration file of another package
On 14-Jan-99, 08:03 (CST), Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Santiago Vila writes (Bug#29770: Policy contradicts itself about
/etc/aliases):
...
Policy says:
A package may not modify a configuration file of another package.
Why don't we change this to:
A package may
Santiago Vila writes (Bug#29770: Policy contradicts itself about
/etc/aliases):
...
Policy says:
A package may not modify a configuration file of another package.
Why don't we change this to:
A package may not modify a configuration file of another package,
except by arrangement
Hi,
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Santiago On 2 Dec 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Why is this report a policy bug? I see no contradicxtion here
at all, I just see two buggy MTA packages. /etc/aliases, as reading
policy tells one, can not, and should not, be a conffile
On 03-Dec-98, 18:21 (CST), Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Polcy is very confused about configuration file as opposed to
conffile, and appears to use the terms inter changeably (I have
copies of a large post I made to the policy list a few months ago).
Clarifying
retitle 29770 [PROPOSED] Differentiate between conffile and configuration file
severity 29770 wishlist
thanks
--
If a guru falls in the forest with no one to hear him, was he really
a guru at all? Strange de Jim, The Metasexuals
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
retitle 29770 [PROPOSED] Differentiate between conffile and configuration file
Bug#29770: Policy contradicts itself about /etc/aliases
Changed bug title.
severity 29770 wishlist
Bug#29770: [PROPOSED] Differentiate between conffile and configuration
On 4 Dec 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
retitle 29770 [PROPOSED] Differentiate between conffile and configuration file
severity 29770 wishlist
thanks
Thank you :-)
--
f39c2ad9c1af409d7b03cfec33c3d04c (a truly random sig)
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Why is this report a policy bug? I see no contradicxtion here
at all, I just see two buggy MTA packages. /etc/aliases, as reading
policy tells one, can not, and should not, be a conffile at all.
I reopened it since your reason for closing it was
At 02:41 +0100 1998-12-03, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Why is this report a policy bug? I see no contradicxtion here
at all, I just see two buggy MTA packages. /etc/aliases, as reading
policy tells one, can not, and should not, be a conffile at all.
I
Hi,
Wichert == Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wichert I reopened it since your reason for closing it was
Wichert false.
Incorrect? Does not false imply intent?
Wichert Feel free to close this, as long as you also file bugs
Wichert against sendmail and exim at the same
On 2 Dec 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Why is this report a policy bug? I see no contradicxtion here
at all, I just see two buggy MTA packages. /etc/aliases, as reading
policy tells one, can not, and should not, be a conffile at all.
Even if /etc/aliases stops being a conffile, it
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Wichert == Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wichert I reopened it since your reason for closing it was
Wichert false.
Incorrect? Does not false imply intent?
Not in computing science :) I don't know what the terminology is
in the US, but
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Incorrect? Does not false imply intent?
Not that I know of. Then again, I'm not a native English speaker so
I might just not know that.
Wichert.
--
==
This combination of bytes
Previously Joel Klecker wrote:
Huh? exim doesn't claim /etc/aliases as a conffile.
Even better! (I forgot who, but someone said both sendmail and exim
listed aliases as a conffile, which is why I mentioned it).
WIchert.
--
On Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 11:23:19PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I shall file a bug against sendmail ,which I do have
installed. I shan't file one against exim, since I can't verify that,
and some one has posted saying that exim does not declare
/etc/aliases a conffile.
Indeed it
Hi,
Why is this report a policy bug? I see no contradicxtion here
at all, I just see two buggy MTA packages. /etc/aliases, as reading
policy tells one, can not, and should not, be a conffile at all.
In this particular case I agree with policy. I do not think
that any
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reopen 29770
Bug#29770: Policy contradicts itself about /etc/aliases
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs database)
On 28 Nov 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Since /etc/aliases is not a conf file belonging to any package
whatsoever, sectiosn 4.7 and 5.5 are not in conflict. I am closing
this report.
Please, read carefully the bug report. Policy says:
A package may not modify a configuration file of
4.7. Configuration files
If two or more packages use the same configuration file, one of these
packages has to be defined as _owner_ of the configuration file, i.e.,
it has to list the file as `conffile' and has to provide a program
that
Hi,
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4.7. Configuration files
If two or more packages use the same configuration file, one of these
packages has to be defined as _owner_ of the configuration file, i.e.,
it has to list the file as `conffile' and
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Please explain the rationale for this. As long as user changes
are preserved, why should a program designed to modify a conffile not
modify it?
I was using conffile to mean anything registered as a conffile with dpkg -
just to make sure we have our terminology
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Since /etc/aliases is not a conf file belonging to any package
whatsoever, sectiosn 4.7 and 5.5 are not in conflict. I am closing
this report.
This is not true. Both smail and sendmail have /etc/aliases as a conffile.
Richard Braakman
I believe that part of policy was put in for a purpose, and I
think it has legitimate uses. A developer who uses it must be careful
to avoid harmful consequences, but in some cases it is necessary to
avoid disrupting messages during installation, and to avoid user
surprise.
Bob
Joey Hess
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Since /etc/aliases is not a conf file belonging to any package
whatsoever, sectiosn 4.7 and 5.5 are not in conflict. I am closing
this report.
This is not true. Both smail and sendmail have
Bob Hilliard wrote:
I believe that part of policy was put in for a purpose, and I
think it has legitimate uses. A developer who uses it must be careful
to avoid harmful consequences, but in some cases it is necessary to
avoid disrupting messages during installation, and to avoid user
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have discovered a little inconsistency in the policy.
Section 5.5, Mail transport agents says:
/etc/aliases is the source file for the system mail aliases
(e.g., postmaster, usenet, etc.)--it is the one which the
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.0.0
I have discovered a little inconsistency in the policy.
Section 5.5, Mail transport agents says:
/etc/aliases is the source file for the system mail aliases (e.g.,
postmaster, usenet, etc.)--it is the one which the sysadmin and
postinst scripts
28 matches
Mail list logo
