On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:22:45 +0100, Mark Hindley
wrote:
>I suppose I thought simpler handling and dropping an unnecessary dependency
>was a
>step forward.
I would be all for doing it the other way around: First address the
remaining usability and completeness issues in ucf and then happily
depre
Steve,
Many thanks for your input on this.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 10:52:24AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> And dropping ucf handling is certainly not required for addressing Policy
> 4.1.3 compatibility, which is what you mention in the changelog.
>
> Why do you think it's necessary here to re
Hi Mark,
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 02:21:03PM +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> Hello,
> I am working on fixing bug #905178 which is caused by moving away from using
> ucf
> to manage /etc/default/apt-cacher back to handling it as a standard dpkg
> conffile.
> I have a working solution which avoids un
Hello,
I am working on fixing bug #905178 which is caused by moving away from using ucf
to manage /etc/default/apt-cacher back to handling it as a standard dpkg
conffile.
I have a working solution which avoids unnecessary prompting. This is to remove
the ucf version of the file in the preinst unl
4 matches
Mail list logo
