Bug#366140: marked as done (installation: general daemon upgrade problem)
Your message dated Fri, 05 May 2006 18:32:08 +0200
with message-id <200605051832.09213.elendil@planet.nl>
and subject line Fwd: Re: Bug#366140: installation: general daemon upgrade problem
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: installation
Severity: important
I want to refer to bug #363657 and #362825.
Upgradeing a daemon shouldn't presume that the deamon is must be running if it's installed. The script must previously check it.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16
Locale: LANG=hu_HU, LC_CTYPE=hu_HU (charmap=ISO-8859-2)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: Bug#366140: installation: general daemon upgrade problem
Date: Friday 05 May 2006 18:21
From: Hámorszky Balázs <balihb@freepop.hu>
To: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
I've misunderstood the meaning of installation.
otherwise i think that debian should make a policy about daemon
upgrading to avoid things like that bugs.
sorry!
-------------------------------------------------------
No problem.
In that case I propose you first check the Debian policy manual [1] to see
if this subject is already covered or not. I would expect that the basic
principles of daemons should already be covered there.
After that it is probably best to propose a solution and discuss it on the
debian-devel mailing list before maybe filing a bug against
debian-policy.
I'm closing this bug report.
Cheers,
FJP
[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/
--- End Message ---
Reply to: