> I gave this another try, this time using version 2.86.ds1-21 both in
> the changelog entry and in the replaces header, and upgrading from
> version 2.86.ds1-21~1. It failed. Here is the error:
>
> # dpkg -i *-21*.deb
> [...]
> Unpacking sysvinit-utils (from sysvinit-utils_2.86.ds1-21_i38
I gave this another try, this time using version 2.86.ds1-21 both in
the changelog entry and in the replaces header, and upgrading from
version 2.86.ds1-21~1. It failed. Here is the error:
# dpkg -i *-21*.deb
[...]
Unpacking sysvinit-utils (from sysvinit-utils_2.86.ds1-21_i386.deb ...
R
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 12:44 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Fri, 08 Sep 2006, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > We'll adopt whatever name Debian ultimately decide.
> >
> > Thanks, although that was not the main point of my request :
also sprach Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.08.1754 +0200]:
> > Thanks, although that was not the main point of my request :-)
> >
> Umm, then I missed it? :P What was the main point?
(I only bounced that last message of yours to Scott, Henrique)
--
.''`. martin f. krafft
On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 12:44 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > We'll adopt whatever name Debian ultimately decide.
>
> Thanks, although that was not the main point of my request :-)
>
Umm, then I missed it? :P What was the main point
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> We'll adopt whatever name Debian ultimately decide.
Thanks, although that was not the main point of my request :-)
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of
On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 09:46 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> As a sidenote, I'd really appreciate if the Ubuntu guys would consider
> adopting this instance (don't take this as "you're doing a bad job", because
> you are not. Please take it as "please go through a bit more pain to make
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]
> > Also, may I humbly suggest naming the new package sysvinit-utils instead of
> > sysvutils?
>
> Personally I prefer the sysv prefix, to match sysv-rc. Part of my
> rationale is that the killall5, last, lastb, mesg
[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]
> Also, may I humbly suggest naming the new package sysvinit-utils instead of
> sysvutils?
Personally I prefer the sysv prefix, to match sysv-rc. Part of my
rationale is that the killall5, last, lastb, mesg and pidof binaries
don't really have anything to do with the
also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.06.1548
+0200]:
> If I may be so humble, we don't have to follow Ubuntu 100%.
Of course not. But any diff I don't have to keep track of is less
work for me.
> The same way that the Debian team is happy to work to bring
> enhanc
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006, martin f krafft wrote:
> > Also, may I humbly suggest naming the new package sysvinit-utils
> > instead of sysvutils?
>
> Well, except that this would be a divergance from Ubuntu, but on the
> other hand, there's no reason why the Ubuntu package cannot depend
> on sysvutils|sy
also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.06.0619
+0200]:
> A Replaces: sysvinit (<= [whatever]) header in the sysvutils package should
> fix this.
He had
Replaces: last, sysvinit (<< 2.86.ds1-15)
in there... I am not sure about the use of the version though...
> Al
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I did some more testing, trying to upgrade the package using 'dpkg
> -i', and ran into serious problems. It refuses to upgrade because
> sysvinit pre-depend on sysvutils, which include a file already in the
> old/existing sysvinit. I suspect the p
tags 385722 - pending
thanks
[Petter Reinholdtsen]
> I've tested this package split with debootstrap, and it had no
> problem handling it. Because of this, I've commited the change to
> svn to have it included in the next upload.
I did some more testing, trying to upgrade the package using 'dpkg
tags 385722 + pending
thanks
[Petter Reinholdtsen]
> I'm positive to splitting these tools off into their own package.
> I'm unsure about the effect this will have on debootstrap and the
> debian-installer, so I post the patch here first, for review.
I've tested this package split with debootstra
tags 385722 + patch
thanks
I'm positive to splitting these tools off into their own package. I'm
unsure about the effect this will have on debootstrap and the
debian-installer, so I post the patch here first, for review.
It is based on the code in sysvinit version 2.86.ds1-14.1ubuntu7 from
ubun
Package: sysvinit
Version: 2.86.ds1-15
Severity: wishlist
Ubuntu has recently split several programmes from sysvinit into
a separate binary package (same source), called sysvutils. The
reason was upstart, which is designed to eventually replace
sysvinit.
http://www.netsplit.com/blog/work/canoni
17 matches
Mail list logo
