On 16-Mar-00, 21:33 (CST), Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Like I said though, I am not messing with any of this until potato is
> released.
Oh, absolutely. However, Wichert wrote "woody+2", which seemed
excessive (at current rate of release, that's about 2003.)
--
Steve Gre
On 16 Mar 2000 20:14:47 -0500, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> It's rather slow, since you need to unpack the .deb to get the md5sums
> for its conffiles, read /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list to see if a conffiles
> still belongs to a package, /var/lib/dpkg/status to get the previous
> md5sums, etc.
Actually,
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 08:36:15PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 16-Mar-00, 18:02 (CST), Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh, and you still loose if people don't use apt.
>
> Well, there's a *lot* features one doesn't get unless one uses apt. So?
>
> > There is already a patc
On 16-Mar-00, 18:02 (CST), Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, and you still loose if people don't use apt.
Well, there's a *lot* features one doesn't get unless one uses apt. So?
> There is already a patch to make dpkg log things using syslog. At some
> point I'ld like to generali
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 06:24:47PM -0500, Will Lowe wrote:
> > One other question: Does anyone think having a "never ask about this
> > config file again" option is a good thing? I'm torn.
>
> Not on a per-conffile basis, I think. Maybe there should be a way to make
> the default for _all_ conffil
It seems to me that a better way to do this (in the abstract case :) ) would
be to librarify dpkg -- that is, to make a libdpkg which approximately parallels
libapt. This would also have the effect of solving some annoying quirks in the
apt/dpkg interaction which are caused (if I remember correc
Previously Tom Rothamel wrote:
> The problem I have is that dpkg keeps on prompting me as to the
> disposition of config files I have changed. Don't get me wrong, I like
> the fact that it asks me what to do... I just wish it would do it at
> the start, and proceed cleanly through the upgrade witho
> Debconf integration doesn't seem all that likely, as the two are
> fairly orthagonal. (In the Debian world, configuration and
> configuration files seem to be rather distinct things.)
Yes, they're pretty distinct, but it seems a little counterintuitive to
have to "configure" a package twice: o
On 16 Mar 2000 16:06:34 -0500, Will Lowe wrote:
> I've had the same thought, but not enough time to begin such a project.
> I wonder if there would be some way to integrate this with the existing
> debconf system -- if it uses the same interface, etc., end-users will be
> much happier.
I plan to
> - When apt runs to upgrade packages, it will call a new program (which
> I plan to write) in the same way that it calls
> dpkg-preconfigure. TNP would scan the list of upgraded packages,
I've had the same thought, but not enough time to begin such a project.
I wonder if there would be some
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 02:25:10PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> In /etc/apt/sources.list add these lines:
>
> DPkg
> {
> Options {"--force-confdef";}
> }
>
> This will make dpkg always choose the default option to the conffile
> questions. If there is no default, it will still prompt (not likely
sounds nice.
there's another thing about apt-get which IMHO should be changed (if this
option already exists i'm sorry for being too lame for the docs): my
connection often suffers time-outs and i afterwards have to do a
--fix-missing. i think it would be nice if you could tell apt-get to try
agai
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 02:18:25PM -0500, Tom Rothamel wrote:
> One of the minor annoyances in Debian is the prompting that goes on
> during package upgrades. It's not the fact that the prompting
> occurs... I like the fact that it doesn't silently redo the system
> configuration... but rather the
13 matches
Mail list logo
