Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 09:48:06PM -0700, Mircea Luca wrote:
> > Sorry for jmping in here,but then what is the solution to this
> > small dilema :
> > lilo depends on logrotate,logrotate depends on mailx
> lilo depending on logrotate is an absurdity is it not?
> > So if I try to remove mailx I can't boot linux anymore with lilo.
> well why are you removing mailx? alot of things use it to send mail
> (even though those things are arguably broken)
I don't .It was proof of concept.:-) Altough why keep a package which
I don't use which is known to have severe bugs ?
I think that a package should depend on a MUA and not on A_specific
MUA.Kinnda the same deal as with MTA.I guess I'll just dig in the policy
and file the bug reports and see what gives.
It does sound more logical to me.
> > I guess filing a bugreport against logrotate and lilo ?
> > why does lilo depends on logrotate anyway ?
> very good question. all it uses it for (AFAIK) is to mv the
> /boot/boot.b to /boot/boot.b.preserved which previous lilos
> misteriously were able to do without logrotate for countless
Previous lilo's were able to do things well without breaking stuff or
doing weird & nasty things by themsleves(well that got fixed,but I was
happy I had a backup ) .:-)
> here is my suggestion, install grub, and apt-get --purge remove lilo
> to escape this madness. the grub packages won't ever touch any part
> of your active bootloader when upgraded too.
I kinnda stayed away from grub since it was in incipient state for a
long time.I heard good things lately about it so I may as well use it.