Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:09:36AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Package: tetex-base
>> > Version: 3.0-10
>> > Severity: normal
>> >
>> > When upgrading to tetex-base 3.0-10, I was asked about my changes to
>> > the file /etc/texdoctk/texdocrc through ucf. When I asked to see the
>> > differences against my installed version, the diff was against /dev/null
>> > so every line was new.
>> >
>> > I did not delete the previous version of this file, and did not even
>> > know it existed. This package or another either removed it or failed
>> > to install it. However, I shouldn't have been asked about it.
>>
>> Was this an upgrade from 3.0-9 or from 2.0.2c-9?
>
> 2.0.2c-9.
I have found one possible explanation for this:
- This system was a woody system somewhen (or testing/unstable with
packages as later released with woody), with the texdocrc file
belonging to the texdoctk package
- You upgraded to sarge (or at least sarge's package population),
tetex-{base,bin} replaced texdoctk (leaving it in state rc), and took
over its files. However, we took over texdocrc with ucf, and
therefore dpkg doesn't know that it now belongs to tetex-base
- You purged texdoctk (maybe in an effort to purge many rc packages you
didn't care about), and dpkg removed the file
- You upgraded tetex-base which produced the problem you reported.
If this is right, the reason for the bug is "tetex-base didn't take over
files properly". Does that sound reasonable?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
