Re: Incorrect use of dpkg conffile suffixes and lintian checks

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Incorrect use of dpkg conffile suffixes and lintian checks
From: Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:22:07 -0500
Message-id: <[🔎] 20080120182207.GA14161@scowler.net>
Mail-followup-to: Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20080120154434.GA26412@chistera.yi.org>
References: <[🔎] 20080119133712.GA29360@nagini.vm.bytemark.co.uk> <[🔎] 4793565E.104@debian.org> <[🔎] 20080120153043.GA25563@nagini.vm.bytemark.co.uk> <[🔎] 20080120154434.GA26412@chistera.yi.org>

On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 04:44:34PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> In summary, `run-parts` is safe wrt .dpkg-bak, `run-parts --lsbsysinit`
> is not.

Easy enough to fix if need be.

Reply to:

References:
- Incorrect use of dpkg conffile suffixes and lintian checks
  - From: Roger Leigh <rleigh@debian.org>
- Re: Incorrect use of dpkg conffile suffixes and lintian checks
  - From: Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>
- Re: Incorrect use of dpkg conffile suffixes and lintian checks
  - From: Roger Leigh <rleigh@whinlatter.ukfsn.org>
- Re: Incorrect use of dpkg conffile suffixes and lintian checks
  - From: Adeodato Simó <dato@net.com.org.es>

Prev by Date: Re: Incorrect use of dpkg conffile suffixes and lintian checks
Next by Date: Re: Possible mass bug filing: missing shared library dependencies
Previous by thread: Re: Incorrect use of dpkg conffile suffixes and lintian checks
Next by thread: [rfc] mass-mod old ita/itp bugs back to rfa/rfp?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread