I think there should be a set-params script in all packages that require
interaction. This script should get params from the user, store them in
COAS repository, and then the pre-inst and post-inst should use those
parameters, getting them from COAS. The set-params script should not
require that th
On Sat, Jan 3 1998 17:38 +0100 Richard Braakman writes:
> Christian Schwarz wrote:
> [Immediate-Configure: Yes field]
[...]
> An Immediate-Configure field will help with 2, but I think there is a
> better solution. If there is a way to specify that a package's
> postinst is _not interactive_, the
On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> 'Christian Schwarz wrote:'
> >
> >On Fri, 2 Jan 1998, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> >
> >> '[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:'
> >> >
> >> >Actually, I'm not sure there is a problem with libc5-altdev. There
> >> >definitely
> >> >is a dependency clash between libc5 an
'Christian Schwarz wrote:'
>
>On Fri, 2 Jan 1998, Chris Fearnley wrote:
>
>> '[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:'
>> >
>> >Actually, I'm not sure there is a problem with libc5-altdev. There
>> >definitely
>> >is a dependency clash between libc5 and libc6, which David Engel thinks we
>> >should patch by prod
Christian Schwarz wrote:
[Immediate-Configure: Yes field]
If I recall correctly, there were two reasons for delaying the
configuration step until all packages had been unpacked:
1.- Packages are more likely to have their dependencies satisfied if
all of the packages being installed have
On Fri, 2 Jan 1998, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> '[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:'
> >
> >Actually, I'm not sure there is a problem with libc5-altdev. There definitely
> >is a dependency clash between libc5 and libc6, which David Engel thinks we
> >should patch by producing an upgrade for libc5. This will hav
'[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:'
>
>Actually, I'm not sure there is a problem with libc5-altdev. There definitely
>is a dependency clash between libc5 and libc6, which David Engel thinks we
>should patch by producing an upgrade for libc5. This will have to be installed
>before hamm. It's not yet clear to
On 2 Jan 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It looks as if Richard has taken care of libc5, and libc5-altdev doesn't
> need a change. Dale, did you do the ae-using-slang upload? I'm going to
> need that soon.
>
I've been out of town, and just got back this evening. I already have the
patches, (got t
It looks as if Richard has taken care of libc5, and libc5-altdev doesn't
need a change. Dale, did you do the ae-using-slang upload? I'm going to
need that soon.
Thanks
Bruce
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble?
OK, I think the patch is only necessary for libc5 run-time.
Thanks
Bruce
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
On 1 Jan 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We need someone to do a non-maintainer upgrade of libc5-altdev, installing
> the patch in David Engel's mail. I'm busy with boot floppies. Can someone
> pretty please do this?
I have been talking with David about helping out here. I'll take a look at
his p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually, I'm not sure there is a problem with libc5-altdev. There
> definitely is a dependency clash between libc5 and libc6, which
> David Engel thinks we should patch by producing an upgrade for
> libc5. This will have to be installed before hamm. It's not yet
> clear
| On Thursday, 1 January 98, at 3:06:02 PM
| Richard wrote about "need libc5 non-maintainer upgrade"
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Is libc5-altdev OK in its present state?
> Hmm... OK for what? You said you needed David Engel's patch, you
> didn't say why
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is libc5-altdev OK in its present state?
Hmm... OK for what? You said you needed David Engel's patch, you
didn't say why :-)
The effect of this patch on libc5-altdev will be to remove the
"Conflicts: libc5-dev" line from its package description. This is
part of the s
Actually, I'm not sure there is a problem with libc5-altdev. There definitely
is a dependency clash between libc5 and libc6, which David Engel thinks we
should patch by producing an upgrade for libc5. This will have to be installed
before hamm. It's not yet clear to me that we can make this automat
20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 52146 Wuerselen
Go SF49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! | Tel: (+49) 2405/4670-44
> --
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 1. Januar 1998 08:08
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Sub
Richard,
Is libc5-altdev OK in its present state?
Thanks
Bruce
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
I started compiling libc5 with Ray Dassen's patch. It will probably
take a few hours to complete.
I changed the patch a bit more. I added the following lines to the
control entry for libc5-dev:
Conflicts: libc (<<4.6.27-11), libc-dev
Provides: libc-dev
Replaces: ppp (<<2.2.0f-22)
I took
On Thu, Jan 01, 1998 at 07:08:44AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We need someone to do a non-maintainer upgrade of libc5-altdev, installing
> the patch in David Engel's mail. I'm busy with boot floppies. Can someone
> pretty please do this?
I've tried to, but it missed a description for the -d
We need someone to do a non-maintainer upgrade of libc5-altdev, installing
the patch in David Engel's mail. I'm busy with boot floppies. Can someone
pretty please do this?
Also, it looks to me as if libc6 depends on versions of kernel-headers
and kernel-source that are _not_ in hamm at the moment.
20 matches
Mail list logo
