On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:12:10PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > 3m9.8s ERROR: Package purging left files on system: > > /etc/openafs owned by: openafs-client, openafs-fileserver > > Yeah, I did see that, but it didn't make any sense, since that's a > directory owned by the package (dpkg -c shows it in the Debian package, > and dpkg -L will show it as owned by the package).
I fully agree with you. > Looks like piuparts wasn't at all at fault here -- I was too quick to > blame it! I apologize for that. I was assuming that it wasn't showing > the full contents of the directory, but apparently something stranger is > happening. And the mystery deepens! :-) > > [(sid)[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~] sudo dpkg --purge openafs-client > > (Reading database ... 25464 files and directories currently installed.) > > Removing openafs-client ... > > Purging configuration files for openafs-client ... > > dpkg - warning: while removing openafs-client, directory `/etc/openafs' not > > empty so not removed. > > This is expected, since /etc/openafs/server still exists at this point > since it's in the openafs-fileserver package. Yes, I observed that. > > [(sid)[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~] sudo dpkg --purge openafs-fileserver > > (Reading database ... 25461 files and directories currently installed.) > > Removing openafs-fileserver ... > > Purging configuration files for openafs-fileserver ... > > dpkg - warning: while removing openafs-fileserver, directory > > `/var/lib/openafs' not empty so not removed. > > dpkg - warning: while removing openafs-fileserver, directory > > `/var/log/openafs' not empty so not removed. > > [(sid)[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~] ls /etc/openafs > > <blank> > > However, here, dpkg didn't remove /etc/openafs, even though it's empty and > part of the openafs-fileserver package. Nor did it warn that it wasn't > removing it because it wasn't empty. > > It looks to me like you've uncovered a bug in dpkg. I don't see any way > that this should be fixed in the openafs-fileserver package; it's dpkg's > responsibility to remove directories that are part of a package that's > being purged, surely? But maybe I'm still misunderstanding something? IMHO, you would definitely know better! :-) If you feel it is dpkg's responsibility to handle this case, so be it, you can reassign it. I trust that you would have attempted to reproduce what I tried in a chroot, and confirmed it (I may have goofed up in my attempt). If you are sure, I'd rather have you reassign it to dpkg, since the having the maintainer reassigning the bug carries more authority, in my opinion. Thanks for the patient hearing! :-) Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 458, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
