Re: Bug#189566: amavisd-new: bad interaction with package amavis-ng

2003-04-20 Thread Marc Haber
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:54:23 +0300, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 09:00:51AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: >> In the last case, there should be a way to do this _easily_. Currently >> the only way to do this is parsing dpkg --list output, which is mucho >> ugly. >

Re: Bug#189566: amavisd-new: bad interaction with package amavis-ng

2003-04-20 Thread Richard Braakman
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 09:00:51AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > In the last case, there should be a way to do this _easily_. Currently > the only way to do this is parsing dpkg --list output, which is mucho > ugly. I'd actually prefer the file check, and not involve the packaging system in the day-t

Re: Bug#189566: amavisd-new: bad interaction with package amavis-ng

2003-04-20 Thread Marc Haber
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:13:50 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It is also a damn hole in Debian policy. That one I will propose a fix >to: scripts that are conffiles MUST test if the package is in the installed >state, and that test MUST either be done by checking for

Re: Bug#189566: amavisd-new: bad interaction with package amavis-ng

2003-04-19 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Ernst Kloppenburg wrote: > yes. So maybe one of the packages should have its amavisd renamed. I have no problem with that (heck, it is a daemon). But this does not solve the entire Debian-wide problem that the amavis-* packages hit. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk

Re: Bug#189566: amavisd-new: bad interaction with package amavis-ng

2003-04-19 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003, Brian May wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 08:51:51PM -0400, David B Harris wrote: > > Share an initscript between them, if that's possible? > > No, that would cause more problems trying to rename > the existing amavisd-new conffile. Agreed. This is not something we should b

Re: Bug#189566: amavisd-new: bad interaction with package amavis-ng

2003-04-19 Thread Brian May
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 08:51:51PM -0400, David B Harris wrote: > Share an initscript between them, if that's possible? No, that would cause more problems trying to rename the existing amavisd-new conffile. On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:06:58AM +0200, Ernst Kloppenburg wrote: > yes. So maybe one of

Re: Bug#189566: amavisd-new: bad interaction with package amavis-ng

2003-04-19 Thread Ernst Kloppenburg
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 10:22:45 +1000, Brian May wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 09:33:01PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Package: amavisd-new > > Version: 20021227p2-5 > > Severity: grave > > Grave would seem to be a bit of an overkill? amavisd-new still works OK > for the majority of use

Re: Bug#189566: amavisd-new: bad interaction with package amavis-ng

2003-04-18 Thread David B Harris
On Sat Apr 19, 10:22am +1000, Brian May wrote: > Any ideas? Share an initscript between them, if that's possible? pgp2vmAEIdmO0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#189566: amavisd-new: bad interaction with package amavis-ng

2003-04-18 Thread Brian May
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 09:33:01PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Package: amavisd-new > Version: 20021227p2-5 > Severity: grave Grave would seem to be a bit of an overkill? amavisd-new still works OK for the majority of users... > when >- amavis-ng is installed (I used version 0.1.6.2-1)