Dear Luk, I've got a question regarding a fix for the piuparts test release goal. Kumar who reported the bug redirected us to you.
Kumar Appaiah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > /etc/texdoctk/texdoctk.dat owned by: tetex-base [...] >> > /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. This is true, it's not dpkg's fault. But here comes the real question to you, Luk: >> 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? And Kumars main answer was to ask you... TIA, Frank -- Frank Küster Debian Developer (TeXLive) ADFC Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
