* Tomas Pospisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-10 12:46-0500]: > Hello Micah, > > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Micah Anderson wrote: > >> * Tomas Pospisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-10 09:57-0500]: >>> It seems to me that vserver-copy is easier to use and more powerful than >>> vserver -s build blah blah. But whatever vserver-copy as shipped by >>> Debian has been dead now for three years. What about killing it before >>> lenny comes out so that it doesn't confuse yet another generation of >>> sysadmins? >>> *t >> >> Can you be more specific? You are saying that vserver-copy is easier to >> use than 'vserver -s build...', but that the version of vserver-copy >> shipped with the debian util-vserver package is out of date? Where is >> the newer, easier to use vserver-copy you are referring to? >> >> Are you talking about the vserver-debianutils package? > > I'm talking about the util-vserver package referenced by bug #307980. > > The vserver-copy tool as shipped in Debian "etch" isn't able to copy with > vserver's current configuration format. I have not tried whether the one > in lenny is able or not. > > If it does understand the "new" (a few years old by now) format, then > you could close the bug. If it can't then it'd be good to move > vserver-copy to the side (as suggested by yourself here [1].)
Wow, thanks for pointing this out to me, for some reason I did not receive the follow-ups to this bug after I closed it. Those follow-ups were people telling me that the bug actually wasn't closed properly. I've just committed the proper fix, which removes the legacy binaries, and man pages. I've also asked for a release exception for this (along with a POSIX fix and a potential future security fix), with some luck we'll get it and Lenny will not ship with this unfortuante confusion. Micah
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
