Dear Debian folks,
Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2012, 09:30 +0100 schrieb Michael Biebl: > On 23.12.2011 13:11, Roger Leigh wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 06:24:22AM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > >> Package: initscripts > >> Version: 2.88dsf-18 > >> Severity: normal > >> > >> Thanks for splitting bootlogd into a separate package! > >> > >> I noticed though, that after the upgrade I still had the obsolete > >> conffiles installed: > > > > Just to clarify, was bootlogd installed at any point? If bootlogd > > No, I just upgraded initscripts/sysvinit-utils > I never installed bootlogd (btw, I hope you don't add bootlogd back as a > depends or recommends) if I am not mistaken I also never had `bootlogd` installed. > > gets installed, we can do conffile-related handling in the preinst, > > but otherwise it would be rather dangerous for use to do anything > > here, since we might remove files owned by bootlogd. > > > > I've moved conffiles between packages and within packages before, but > > never kept them in the same location. That does make it trickier. > > This might be helpful: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/02/msg00249.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/02/msg00254.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/02/msg00349.html Ironically this bug leads to the problem reported in #676463 for `sysv-rc`. (I do not know if `affects` or `blocks` have to be set.) $ dpkg-query -W -f='${Conffiles}\n' initscripts | grep 'obsolete$' /etc/init.d/stop-bootlogd 4544c7e1a2d0c713d29424d02faad237 obsolete /etc/init.d/bootlogd 267ceea04f703171e6c62f506fda3305 obsolete /etc/init.d/stop-bootlogd-single 648d8624e708151500c5e299a6005afe obsolete $ md5sum /etc/init.d/stop-bootlogd /etc/init.d/bootlogd /etc/init.d/stop-bootlogd-single 4544c7e1a2d0c713d29424d02faad237 /etc/init.d/stop-bootlogd 267ceea04f703171e6c62f506fda3305 /etc/init.d/bootlogd 648d8624e708151500c5e299a6005afe /etc/init.d/stop-bootlogd-single So `initscripts` should make sure to get these conffiles removed, if I am not mistaken. It would be great if you could find a solution. Thanks, Paul [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=676463
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
