On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 04:28:12PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > > Package: tetex-base > > seems to let the following files remain unremoved: > > > > /etc/texdoctk not owned > > /etc/texdoctk/texdocrc not owned > > /etc/texdoctk/texdoctk.dat owned by: tetex-base > > /etc/texmf owned by: tex-common > > /etc/texmf/updmap.d owned by: tex-common > > /etc/texmf/updmap.d/10tetex-base.cfg owned by: tetex-base > > I'm a bit puzzled about the two files which are still owned by > tetex-base after purging the package. Isn't that a bug in dpkg?
This could be possible, though I am unsure. Also, I think the ownership of the file is being reported by piuparts; that is, piuparts records the package to which each file belongs. So, I would conclude that the above indicates that file texdocrc etc. are present even after tetex-base purging. Now why they haven't disappeared is not clear to me. > On the other hand, I have a question regarding 10tetex-base.cfg. > tetex-base is now only a transitional package. We already have code in > the TeXLive packages which "handles" this file: It is made ineffective, > but renamed into 10tetex-base.cnf.obsolete. > > This was done on purpose, because this conffile might contain local > changes which are still valuable for the local admin, although there's > no way for an automatic taking over to some "current" conffile. > > I feel that this should be a valid reason to keep a file around after a > transition. Did you discuss similar situations in the context of this > release goal? Whom could I ask for advice? Well, the short answer is that this file should be removed during upgrade, or tetex-base should still own the file, so that an upgrade plus purge would purge it. However, please redirect this query to Luk Claes, on whose behalf I filed this bug report. I am sorry for not being too helpful, but in case there is more I could do, please do inform me. Thanks. Kumar
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
