On 2013-08-19 15:38, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > You advice to > test -L symlink; then > rm -f symlink; > fi > > It is really a bad piece of advice because: > - it remove custumised by admin symlink and thus is a policy violation > - it does not handle partial upgrade/failled install > - it does not handle downgrade.
But at least it works for the majority of use cases: upgrades of non-customized systems. And partially for recovery from previous messed up upgrades. That should be at least better than having nothing at all. To fix this perfectly, the task should be handed over to a tool. Since the majority of the problems is /usr/share/doc/$PACKAGE switching between symlink and directory, dh_installdocs might be the appropriate place ... I'm not sure whether it is possible to get downgrades done correctly at all. Downgrades from a package shipping a symlink should probably unconditionally remove that link (if unmodified) in prerm - and let the old package install again anything it wants to have there. For your question about affected packages, you can probably count the matching subjects from http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=piuparts;users=debian...@lists.debian.org&archive=both And these are only the ones I found with piuparts. And not all may use the same subject. Feel free to add another usertag to build a separate group. Hmm, we could test downgrades with piuparts, too, if someone (!= me) writes some patches ... I really don't want to open that can of worms. Andreas PS: if a package ships a symlink, that gets customized by the local admin - upon upgrade, dpkg will restore the link to the shipped value - is that a policy violation, too? (no directory vs. symlink switching) PPS: apt-get install foo ; customize ; apt-get remove foo ; apt-get install foo ; # which customization must survive (turning files, directories, symlinks into (different) symlinks)? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org