Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 04:02:52PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>>
>> - 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.
And you never upgraded to one of the teTeX-2.9/3.0 versions in
experimental?
>> - 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.
No, it doesn't - if you installed testing or unstable in 2005 (or even
in 2004), texdoctk was already gone by then, and dpkg wouldn't know any
owner of the texdocrc file. I have no clue what is going on.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
