Le Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 08:59:01AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > It should work way better than before, in part thanks the to the usage
> > and bug reporting from MIT, but as you say there's still some wrinkles,
> > which I plan on fixing for 1.17.x; in any case I'm always interested in
> > any bug reports affecting these.
>
> The major issue I had with this case is when you try to purge the
> diverting package. On remove, you put back in place in the original
> conffile and at that point dpkg should (but doesn't currently) forget
> about the conffile in the diverting package. Otherwise on purge, you
> actually remove the diverted conffile and you have no files left.
>
> I don't know if that's part of your "known wrinkles". If not, I'll happily
> open a bug report. Let me know.
Hi all,
maybe a bug report would be a good way to track the issue and include a
reminder to update the Policy once it is solved ?
In the meantime, I propose to modify Appendix G by adding the following
sentence.
Do not attempt to divert a conffile, as <prog>dpkg</prog> does not handle
it well.
I know that we should not add contents to the appendices, but in that case it
already contains a similar warning about files vitally important for the
systemm, and I think that it would be confusing to separate the two warnings.
Cheers,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
