Ian Jackson writes:
> I wrote:
>> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#562945: Bug#582755: Bug#562945: fails to
>> install"):
>>> In summary, my proposal would be to:
>>> - decline to override the runit-run maintainer, whose use of debconf is
>&
I wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#562945: Bug#582755: Bug#562945: fails to
> install"):
> > In summary, my proposal would be to:
> >
> > - decline to override the runit-run maintainer, whose use of debconf is
> >discouraged but /not/ forb
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#562945: Bug#582755: Bug#562945: fails to
install"):
> In summary, my proposal would be to:
>
> - decline to override the runit-run maintainer, whose use of debconf is
>discouraged but /not/ forbidden by Policy
> - advise the Poli
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:38:11 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Personally, I don't think runit-run's behavior here is what's intended to be
> allowed under Policy.
I agree. The current behavior in the case where the question is
answered "yes" seems completely inadequate, and the mere presence of th
Hi,
btw, thank you all (tech-ctte) for helping in resolving this! Much
appreciated.
On Freitag, 18. Juni 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Personally, I don't think runit-run's behavior here is what's intended to
> be allowed under Policy. IMHO, if the question is "do you want to install
> this pac
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:29:42PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> reassign 562945 tech-ctte
> # unmerge 506898 224509
> # policy-maintainers, I think you should do this ^
> thanks
> for those coming late to the party: this bug is about a package which fails
> to
> install cleanly:
> Unpacking r
Holger Levsen writes:
> Ah, thanks. You didnt quote the following sentence though:
> "However, this situation should be avoided if at all possible, since it
> prevents automated or unattended installs. In most cases, users will
> consider this to be a bug in the package."
> which is exactly my
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 562945 tech-ctte
Bug #562945 [runit-run] fails to install
Bug #574223 [runit-run] runit-run: installation fails
Bug reassigned from package 'runit-run' to 'tech-ctte'.
Bug reassigned from package 'runit-run' to 'tech-ctte'.
Bug No longer
reassign 562945 tech-ctte
# unmerge 506898 224509
# policy-maintainers, I think you should do this ^
thanks
Hi,
for those coming late to the party: this bug is about a package which fails to
install cleanly:
Unpacking runit-run (from .../runit-run_1.1.1_all.deb) ...
dpkg: error processing /v
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:47:24 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Freitag, 18. Juni 2010, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > For high-priority prompts without a reasonable default answer,
> > maintainer scripts may abort if there is no controlling
> > terminal.
>
> f
Hi,
On Freitag, 18. Juni 2010, Julien Cristau wrote:
> For high-priority prompts without a reasonable default answer,
> maintainer scripts may abort if there is no controlling
> terminal.
from where in policy is this? rgrep doesnt let me find this string...
> Replac
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 582755 serious
Bug #582755 [dnscache-run] modifying files from another package
Severity set to 'serious' from 'important'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
582755: http://bugs.debian.org/cg
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:38:25 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> #562945 is definitly serious and I'm sorry that I don't have the time to read
> policy for you. I also havent up my mind whether I should reassign this bug
> to the NM committee or the tech committee. Seriously. A package has to
> i
reopen 582755
severity 582755 important
severity 562945 serious
thanks
On Freitag, 18. Juni 2010, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> severity 562945 normal
> tags 562945 - moreinfo
> quit
>
> No response from the submitter.
Gerrit, you're making things complicated by mixing up these two bug reports.
#562945
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reopen 582755
Bug #582755 {Done: Gerrit Pape } [dnscache-run] modifying
files from another package
> severity 582755 important
Bug #582755 [dnscache-run] modifying files from another package
Severity set to 'important' from 'serious'
> severity
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 562945 normal
Bug #562945 [runit-run] fails to install
Bug #574223 [runit-run] runit-run: installation fails
Severity set to 'normal' from 'serious'
Severity set to 'normal' from 'serious'
> tags 562945 - moreinfo
Bug #562945 [runit-run
severity 562945 normal
tags 562945 - moreinfo
quit
No response from the submitter.
On Mon, May 24, 2010, Gerrit Pape wrote:
[...]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 02:12:34PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed to install.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:27:14PM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:
> If I try to install it in normal system, I'll be prompted to confirm if I
> really wan
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> found 562945 1.0.0
Bug #562945 [runit-run] fails to install
Bug #574223 [runit-run] runit-run: installation fails
Bug Marked as found in versions runit-run/1.0.0.
Bug Marked as found in versions runit-run/1.0.0.
> found 562945 1.1.1
Bug #562945 [r
Hi Gerrit,
On Donnerstag, 25. März 2010, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> severity 562945 important
> tags 562945 + wontfix
I think this is very wrong. See below...
> Hi, this is by intention, I reverted the NMU. runit-run should only be
> installed if actively confirmed again.
ITYM s/installed/activated/
found 562945 1.1.2
severity 562945 important
tags 562945 + wontfix
forcemerge 562945 574223
quit
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 02:12:34PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed to install.
>
> From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...):
>
> Unpa
Hi,
On Sonntag, 24. Januar 2010, Julien Cristau wrote:
> A workaround would be to wrap the exit 1 in
> if [ "$DEBIAN_FRONTEND" != noninteractive ]
> and let users of the noninteractive frontend keep the pieces.
As a FAI user, which uses the noninteractive frontend all the time, I think
this is a
Hi,
On Sonntag, 24. Januar 2010, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:
> runit-run (1.1.1+nmu1) unstable; urgency=medium
>
> * Non-maintainer upload.
> * Urgency medium due to RC bug fix.
> * debian/runit-run.preinst: never fail on noninteractive debconf
> frontend, to make piuparts happy. (close
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
wrote:
> OK to upload? (Fixing those broken symlinks is beyond my understanding.)
Uploaded to DELAYED/2, anyway.
Regards,
--
Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
http://linux.thai.net/~thep/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> A workaround would be to wrap the exit 1 in
> if [ "$DEBIAN_FRONTEND" != noninteractive ]
> and let users of the noninteractive frontend keep the pieces. Shouldn't
> break normal systems since those would use a real frontend, and should
>
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 22:27:14 +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:
> Remotely jamming Mönchengladbach BSP :)
>
> This is caused by debconf question in preinst:
>
> ---8<---
> . /usr/share/debconf/confmodule
> db_get runit-run/install
> if test "$RET" = false; then
> db_fset runit
Remotely jamming Mönchengladbach BSP :)
This is caused by debconf question in preinst:
---8<---
. /usr/share/debconf/confmodule
db_get runit-run/install
if test "$RET" = false; then
db_fset runit-run/install seen false
exit 1
fi
---8<---
If I try to install it in normal system, I
Package: runit-run
Version: 1.1.1
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts piuparts.d.o
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed to install.
From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...):
Unpacking runit-run (from .../runit-run_1.1.1_all.d
28 matches
Mail list logo
