Re: Uploaded man-db 2.3.10-61 (source i386) for unstable
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 1998 at 09:47:45PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 email@example.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > * To avoid the error "pager: No such file" when a newer man is used
> > > > > without upgrading any of the pagers in the system, I have added a
> > > > > bogus pager "/usr/sbin/man-pager", which points to /bin/more,
> > > > > installed through update-alternatives with a weight very light (1).
> > > In fact what I needed was a solution thet could work also on bo, and I
> > > know that none of those pagers is available in bo-unstable.
> > I don't think we should care that much about bo-unstable here. After all,
> > there is no official policy to have every program portable to bo-unstable.
> > We should not accept `bad' solutions in our packages just to make them fit
> > into bo-unstable.
> > Therefore, I'd suggest you remove the "man-pager" hack again, and add an
> > appropriate "Depends: base-files (>= xx.yy)" to the package, and just
> > don't upload this to bo-unstable.
> > Is this ok with you?
> No, I have to care about bo-unstable.
> A magazine went out with a "bo-on-the-edge" and using the newer man on a
> fresh bo install is the perfect way to dive into the "pager" problem.
> And I don't think that the Depends line would be correct, because man
> doesn't depend on "more".
Oh, I meant an depends on base-files of a new version, which would
guarantee that /usr/bin/pager is available, right?
Anways, util-linux seems to install more and is also tagged
Essential--both, in hamm and in bo. So why not just fall back to /bin/more?
-- Christian Schwarz
Do you know firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
Debian GNU/Linux? firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .