[Goswin von Brederlow]
> Actually that is forbidden by policy. A package may not change
> another packages conffiles.
Actually, the policy forbids the _maintainer scripts_ of a package to
change another packages conffiles. It does not forbid a script in a
package to change another packages conffi
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello
>
> I assume that my answer is a bit late as you wrote this in october.
> I have written a package, dysyco that do similar things to what you
> want.
>
> Take a look. I may have misunderstood you.
>
> // Ola
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 03:37:27PM -
Hello
I assume that my answer is a bit late as you wrote this in october.
I have written a package, dysyco that do similar things to what you
want.
Take a look. I may have misunderstood you.
// Ola
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 03:37:27PM -0400, Mark Roach wrote:
> I am working on creating a package
[Jesus Climent]
> The problem being that X using Debconf to store information, Y
> modifying the info and then X getting an upgrade, the info stored by
> X using Debconf might be used again to set the values in the data
> file, which will break the initial purpose of Y.
Well, the solution to this
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:33:16PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> This do not scale well, and make it harder to share knowledge across
> several custom debian distros.
>
> > If x and y have configuration utilities xcfg and ycfg then z should
> > insofar as possible use xcfg and ycfg to mak
Am Monday 18 October 2004 02:01 schrieb Enrico Zini:
> One problem with diversion could also be that the original package's
> scripts won't probably edit the diverted conffile, but would probably
> edit the file in the traditional place instead.
Same would be the case for admins and users, and th
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 10:38:06PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Enrico Zini]
> > One of the suggestions that came out is using dpkg diversions.
> > I remember diversions came out in the past, and I don't remember how
> > come they didn't come out again. Was there something wrong with them?
[Enrico Zini]
> One of the suggestions that came out is using dpkg diversions.
>
> I remember diversions came out in the past, and I don't remember how
> come they didn't come out again. Was there something wrong with them?
I believe they are forbidden or don't work for conffiles. And we need
t
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 10:32:38PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> > I am working on creating a package for UserLinux which will configure
> > several packages with sensible defaults for an authentication server. At
> > the moment, that means samba, slapd, pam and nss, but will also includ
[Thomas Hood]
> Debconf wasn't designed to serve the purpose to which you are trying
> to put it. "Debconf is not a registry."
Actually, debconf was designed for first-time configuration of
packages, and is well suited for the task. Your mantra "debconf is
not a registry" does not apply here.
>
> So, my conclusion is that debconf is not particularly well suited to
> integrating several otherwise-unrelated packages and I am unsure whether
> working around the problem, or helping to improve debconf, or doing it
> some other way entirely is the better approach... thoughts?
Debconf wasn't d
I think that you will find answers in debian-custom list. Adding it to
CC field.
El jue, 14-10-2004 a las 15:37 -0400, Mark Roach escribiÃ:
> I am working on creating a package for UserLinux which will configure
> several packages with sensible defaults for an authentication server. At
> the mom
12 matches
Mail list logo
