Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:30:19PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
>> This may be a good time to remind maintainers that often a versioned
>> conflict may be more appropriate than a versioned dependency.
>
> This seems natural to me, but the policy contains this discou
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:30:19PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> This may be a good time to remind maintainers that often a versioned
> conflict may be more appropriate than a versioned dependency.
This seems natural to me, but the policy contains this discouraging
language:
A Conflicts entry sh
also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.05.1645
+0200]:
> You're always welcome to use the init-ng alioth project to discuss
> ideas and do upstart development, you know. It is completely
> on-topic there.
Right. We're moving there. Anyone interested, please follow!
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.05.1614
> +0200]:
> > invoke-rc.d is a maintainer script compatibility layer to
> > interface to the initscript subsystem (that happens to guarantee
> > some functionality that some i
also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.05.1614
+0200]:
> invoke-rc.d is a maintainer script compatibility layer to
> interface to the initscript subsystem (that happens to guarantee
> some functionality that some initscript subsystems don't provide
> natively while at
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.05.1526
> +0200]:
> > This one needs to depend on sysv-like link farm functionality (as
> > opposed to, say, file-rc style). If upstart provides symlinks,
> > then we need a virtual
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:28:43AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2006, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > invoke-rc.d. IIRC doing something more obvious caused upgrade issues at
> > > the time due to issues with having both sysv-rc and f
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:28:43AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006, Mark Brown wrote:
> > invoke-rc.d. IIRC doing something more obvious caused upgrade issues at
> > the time due to issues with having both sysv-rc and file-rc.
> invoke-rc.d was added to sysv-rc and
also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.05.1526
+0200]:
> This one needs to depend on sysv-like link farm functionality (as
> opposed to, say, file-rc style). If upstart provides symlinks,
> then we need a virtual package. If it doesn't, sysv-rc-conf needs
> to keep
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> system since stable. Any initscript package that does not provide
> invoke-rc.d (and doesn't piggyback on the one from sysvinit or file-rc) has
I do mean "init script subsystem" package, of course. Not regular packages
that have initscrip
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006, Mark Brown wrote:
> invoke-rc.d. IIRC doing something more obvious caused upgrade issues at
> the time due to issues with having both sysv-rc and file-rc.
invoke-rc.d was added to sysv-rc and file-rc at almost the same time, we
didn't botch THAT transition at all, thank you v
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006, martin f krafft wrote:
> Here is the list of packages that depend on sysvinit. For packages
> marked with (*), I already have the maintainers' consent.
>
> sysv-rc-conf
This one needs to depend on sysv-like link farm functionality (as opposed
to, say, file-rc style). If up
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.05.1344 +0200]:
> Anyway, I shall wait until tomorrow and if I don't hear any
> objections, I'll go ahead.
The list is down to seven packages that need updating. I shall thus
send out the bugs now. Sorry for the noise.
--
Please do not sen
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:44:57PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.05.1330 +0200]:
> > This may be a good time to remind maintainers that often
> > a versioned conflict may be more appropriate than a versioned
> > dependency.
> Right.
Most of
also sprach Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.05.1330 +0200]:
> 11 packages is hardly a mass bugs filing and this is a bug
> regardless of the upstart issue. Please go on.
The devel ref says to contact -devel for more than 10 bugs.
Anyway, I shall wait until tomorrow and if I don't hear a
On Sep 05, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to file (normal) bugs to ask the maintainer to remove
> the dependency, and per our Developers' Reference 7.1.1 I am
> soliciting comments.
11 packages is hardly a mass bugs filing and this is a bug regardless of
the upstart issu
Hi DDs,
I am trying to get Scott's upstart daemon into Debian [0][1][2].
It's an alternative to sysvinit, but there's still quite a bunch of
packages which depend on sysvinit. These dependencies were introduced a while
back to work around an invoke-rc.d issue, and from all I can tell, they are
leg
17 matches
Mail list logo
