Re: diversion/conffile
>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr> writes:
Josip> On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 02:14:41AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> You can not divert conffiles. I've tried. And I am a dpkg devloper.
>>
Josip> Sure you can, we've been doing it for years now :) It doesn't
Josip> actually work 100% but hey...
I was somewhat surprised by this light hearted flaunting of a
policy violation. I can see that policy is not exactly seen to be
writ in stone, but I would have thought that policy violations by
design would be at least discussed here, and perhaps noted as an
exception to the rule because there is not other reasonable
solution.
>>
>> List of package names, please?
Josip> Oh and if this request is related to
>> preparing to file a serios bug against linuxlogo unless conviced otherwise
Josip> then the explanation, IIRC, is that xinetd can't conflict with
Josip> netkit-inetd because netbase depends on it, and xinetd depends
Josip> on netbase.
Well, unless a means is found to have the packages cooperate,
this is a serious bug against xinetd, isn't it?
Perhaps the solution would be to have update-inetd somehow
accommodate both xinted and netkit-inetd, and then have a virtual inetd
package provided by both, and have netbase depend of this virtual
inetd package (perhaps not called inetd to allow us not to deal with
versioned virtual depends).
This is what the dpkg maintainer says about what xinetd does
right now:
Adam> Whenever the diverted conffile is modified upstream, dpkg
Adam> chokes during it's installation. Verified by trying it, and by
Adam> walking dpkg's code.
Adam> That part of dpkg's code is very hairy.
manoj
--
Jes wonders why so many people in here uses fooZZZZZ and foo_sleeping
nicks <peter> Jes: Because they are sleeping? Seen on #Linux
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: