Re: Lemonldap-ng
- To: debian-perl@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Lemonldap-ng
- From: Xavier Guimard <x.guimard@free.fr>
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:18:08 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 53539EE0.4050404@free.fr>
- In-reply-to: <20140419201604.GV8140@jadzia.comodo.priv.at>
- References: <5343DCBC.5030502@free.fr> <20140408150907.GH9903@jadzia.comodo.priv.at> <5345A04D.1040502@free.fr> <20140409195305.GE26821@jadzia.comodo.priv.at> <534623A5.7010607@free.fr> <5352CD1C.9000204@free.fr> <20140419201604.GV8140@jadzia.comodo.priv.at>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Le 19/04/2014 22:16, gregor herrmann wrote :
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 21:23:08 +0200, Xavier wrote:
>
>> the only error I have is: 10m49.3s ERROR: FAIL: debsums reports
>> modifications inside the chroot:
>> /etc/lemonldap-ng/lemonldap-ng.ini
>
> Which is an RC bug, as soon as Andreas Beckmann detects it :)
>
>> Even if I remove the bloc that modify this file in
>> liblemonldap-ng-common-perl.postinst, this error stay... I don't
>> understand what happend :(
>
> Is this in a piuparts run with upgrade tests? Then the
> modification probably already happened in the old version.
>
> I have to admit that I looked into such bugs before the wheezy
> release but I forgot about the details ... I guess the BTS has
> quite a few exmples.
>
> How about discussing the question on our mailing list? Maybe
> someone else has more ideas and a better memory than me.
>
>
> Cheers, gregor
Hi all,
lemonldap-ng has debconf templates that modify an /etc file. This
seems to be forbidden by piuparts, so have I to remove this ?
Regards,
Xavier
- --
http://x.guimard.free.fr/xg-gpg-key-transition-2012.txt
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/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=gY6j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: