Reinier Haasjes writes:
>> This doesn't help with any of your other dependencies, just the dependency
>> on debconf (or some other DCMS implementation).
> So if I understand correctly a (pre-)depend on host/dig won't help to
> make sure bind/dig is installed during the config script.
Correct.
> This doesn't help with any of your other dependencies, just the dependency
> on debconf (or some other DCMS implementation).
>
So if I understand correctly a (pre-)depend on host/dig won't help to
make sure bind/dig is installed during the config script.
My idea now is the following:
config-scr
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:50:40PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
>
> > Debconf or another tool that implements the Debian Configuration
> > Management Specification will also be installed, and any versioned
> > dependencies on it will be satisfied before preconfiguration
Hi,
> Another good solution would be to get the brokers list in the
> config/preinst (and ask which one to use) if bind or host are already
> there (the common case) and to get the list in the postinst if the
> information has not already been gotten.
I think this won't be such a bad solution. It
Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
> Debconf or another tool that implements the Debian Configuration
> Management Specification will also be installed, and any versioned
> dependencies on it will be satisfied before preconfiguration begins.
Oh, sorry, I didn't think to check the footnote.
However, I t
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:01:58PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:37:45AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
>
> >>> Uhm, yes, you are right. So it wouldn't help anyway. Only possibility
> >>> would be a versioned de
Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:37:45AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
>>> Uhm, yes, you are right. So it wouldn't help anyway. Only possibility
>>> would be a versioned dependency (according to [1]) or to really do it in
>>> the postinst. Leads
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:37:45AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
>
> > Uhm, yes, you are right. So it wouldn't help anyway. Only possibility
> > would be a versioned dependency (according to [1]) or to really do it in
> > the postinst. Leads to the question which of the
Patrick Schoenfeld writes:
> Uhm, yes, you are right. So it wouldn't help anyway. Only possibility
> would be a versioned dependency (according to [1]) or to really do it in
> the postinst. Leads to the question which of the solution we'd prefer.
> [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 05:32:29PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 29 décembre 2009 à 14:38 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit :
> > Well, this could be solved by a pre-depends on dnsutils |
> > bind9-host. Pre-depends are often frowned upon, what do others think
> > of this for this case?
Le mardi 29 décembre 2009 à 14:38 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit :
> Well, this could be solved by a pre-depends on dnsutils |
> bind9-host. Pre-depends are often frowned upon, what do others think
> of this for this case?
It is utterly and absolutely useless, since config scripts are executed
Hi,
On Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 15:13:54 +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 02:38:46PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 07:44:56PM +0100, Reinier Haasjes wrote:
> >
> > >> Why? Is it really required to have _all_ questions in the postinst?
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 02:38:46PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 07:44:56PM +0100, Reinier Haasjes wrote:
>
> >> Why? Is it really required to have _all_ questions in the postinst?
>
> > No, not all. There are 4 questions asked.
> > 1) brokers list, the list is r
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 07:44:56PM +0100, Reinier Haasjes wrote:
>> Why? Is it really required to have _all_ questions in the postinst?
> No, not all. There are 4 questions asked.
> 1) brokers list, the list is received by the package-binary and the user
> selects te broker he wants to use. For t
Reinier Haasjes writes:
> I'm trying to solve bug #561324 which uses it's own binary in the config
> script.
> It uses it's own binary to get some information (tunnel id) which uses
> login+password to retrieve, it really needs this to compile a good
> config script (if you have more than 1 tunn
Hi,
> Why? Is it really required to have _all_ questions in the postinst?
No, not all. There are 4 questions asked.
1) brokers list, the list is received by the package-binary and the user
selects te broker he wants to use. For this I can use a dns-query (type
TXT) but dig and host are both not e
Hi Reiner,
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 04:40:50PM +0100, Reinier Haasjes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to solve bug #561324 which uses it's own binary in the config
> script.
>
> It uses it's own binary to get some information (tunnel id) which uses
> login+password to retrieve, it really needs this t
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 04:40:50PM +0100, Reinier Haasjes wrote:
> I'm trying to solve bug #561324 which uses it's own binary in the config
> script.
>
> It uses it's own binary to get some information (tunnel id) which uses
> login+password to retrieve, it really needs this to compile a good
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:40:50 +0100
Reinier Haasjes wrote:
> I'm trying to solve bug #561324 which uses it's own binary in the
> config script.
>
> It uses it's own binary to get some information (tunnel id) which uses
> login+password to retrieve, it really needs this to compile a good
> config
Hi,
I'm trying to solve bug #561324 which uses it's own binary in the config
script.
It uses it's own binary to get some information (tunnel id) which uses
login+password to retrieve, it really needs this to compile a good
config script (if you have more than 1 tunnel).
My idea on solving this i
20 matches
Mail list logo
