mailcap stress (was: Potato fresh install)

2000-03-16 Thread Paul Slootman
On Mon 13 Mar 2000, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Paul Slootman wrote: > > > Also, when upgrading mime-support, it always offers to replace the > > conffile /etc/mailcap, which is NEVER a smart thing to do. Maybe > > /etc/mailcap should be one of the base files, and not part of > >

Re: Potato fresh install

2000-03-13 Thread Santiago Vila
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Paul Slootman wrote: > Also, when upgrading mime-support, it always offers to replace the > conffile /etc/mailcap, which is NEVER a smart thing to do. Maybe > /etc/mailcap should be one of the base files, and not part of > mime-support? This is Bug #34294, which I reported m

Re: Potato fresh install

2000-03-13 Thread Paul Slootman
On Sat 11 Mar 2000, Philippe Troin wrote: > > - I had a few seemingly inoffensive warnings about a missing > /etc/mailcap. I've noticed this for some time as well. Isn't the result that those packages that are installed before mime-support aren't registered in /etc/mailcap? If so, perhaps

Re: Potato fresh install

2000-03-12 Thread Joey Hess
Philippe Troin wrote: > The first time I tried to run apt (on a NFS archive), the package > scanning done by debconf failed because base-perl was missing getopt. Yes, this should be fixed in the 2.2.8 floppies. > - Every package using debconf asked the questions before install, > and in the

Potato fresh install

2000-03-11 Thread Philippe Troin
I installed a fresh copy of potato on a box, using the 2.2.7-2000-02-13 boot-disks. The base system install worked perfectly OK here. The first time I tried to run apt (on a NFS archive), the package scanning done by debconf failed because base-perl was missing getopt. => dpkg -i perl*.deb