On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 04:02:52PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:09:36AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> 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
[snip]
It was never a woody system exactly. It was installed with testing or
unstable in January 2005, before sarge's release.
> - 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?
Yes, if the date of texdoctk's removal lines up.
Thanks,
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
