Russ Allbery writes:
> The previous discussion on this bug didn't reach a final consensus on
> wording, but I still believe we have a consensus that this is the right
> general direction. Here's an updated patch that includes the permission
> suggested by Steve Langasek for maintainer scripts to
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 09:34:32AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm looking for seconds or further discussion if people don't believe that
> this is the right direction to go.
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index af00c0e..3f6b82d 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -355
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:34 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The previous discussion on this bug didn't reach a final consensus on
> wording, but I still believe we have a consensus that this is the right
> general direction. Here's an updated patch that includes the permission
> suggested by Steve La
Hi!
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:34:32 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm looking for seconds or further discussion if people don't believe that
> this is the right direction to go.
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index af00c0e..3f6b82d 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -35
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 12:51:33 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Julien Cristau writes:
> > what does this change mean for essential packages that want to prompt
> > the user when debconf isn't available? E.g. libc6.postinst tries to use
> > debconf, and if that's not available and $DEBIAN_FRONTEND !=
The previous discussion on this bug didn't reach a final consensus on
wording, but I still believe we have a consensus that this is the right
general direction. Here's an updated patch that includes the permission
suggested by Steve Langasek for maintainer scripts to abort for
high-priority questi
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Vincent Danjean writes:
>> Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> I'm also not sure that I was right in my previous message about using
>>> the exit status of tty, since it still does make sense to prompt if run
>>> via ssh aptitude upgrade. But I don't know how to detect that
>>> case
Vincent Danjean writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I'm also not sure that I was right in my previous message about using
>> the exit status of tty, since it still does make sense to prompt if run
>> via ssh aptitude upgrade. But I don't know how to detect that
>> case as different from a truly no
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm also not sure that I was right in my previous message about using the
> exit status of tty, since it still does make sense to prompt if run via
> ssh aptitude upgrade. But I don't know how to detect that case as
> different from a truly non-interactive install.
I had is
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 07:43:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but
>> essential packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
>> uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd lik
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 07:43:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but essential
> packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
> uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd like to put
> it to bed. Here's
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 19:43 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but essential
> packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
> uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd like to put
> it to bed. Here's propose
Julien Cristau writes:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 19:43:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but
>> essential packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
>> uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd like
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 19:43:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but essential
> packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
> uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd like to put
> it to bed. Here's p
I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but essential
packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is
uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd like to put
it to bed. Here's proposed wording. I'm looking for feedback or seconds.
diff --git a/
Notice that packages requiring TTY during installations will nowadays
fail to install in debian-installer (see #282147), buildd chroots,
and will hang piuparts testing.
Therefor packages using tty in maintainer scripts are already
de facto buggy in common debian usage situations.
The TTY requirem
16 matches
Mail list logo
