Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> bug #420578
> Oh, since your statement confused me a bit, but reading the bug log
> clarified it: The problem is not with any symlink pointing to conffiles,
> in particular not with the common case of fix
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>> Also, some people might be relaying in the file's current location for
>> something. Should I put a symlink in their place?
>
> Just a warning: Symlinks that are shipped in the deb and poi
Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Also, some people might be relaying in the file's current location for
> something. Should I put a symlink in their place?
Just a warning: Symlinks that are shipped in the deb and point to
conffiles (not just directories) are not a good
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 05:40:35PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 10:02:24AM -0500, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote:
>
> > 1. I'll be shipping the compatibility script as /usr/bin/stunnel3 and
> > the main v4 binary as /usr/bin/stunnel4. I'll ship a /usr/bin/stunnel
> > syml
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 10:02:24AM -0500, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote:
> 1. I'll be shipping the compatibility script as /usr/bin/stunnel3 and
> the main v4 binary as /usr/bin/stunnel4. I'll ship a /usr/bin/stunnel
> symlink pointing at the wrapper for now, and eventually (after lenny,
> for
stunnel (which I'm adpoting) has two mutually incompatible major
upstream versions, 3 and 4. Back when 4 was first released, the
maintainer packaged it separately, as stunnel4, to avoid the major
grief of forcing such an update on users.
Since then, stunnel4 has grown a compatibility wrapper scrip
6 matches
Mail list logo
