On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:15:35 +0100, Holger Levsen <hol...@layer-acht.org> wrote: > during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed the piuparts > upgrade > test because dpkg detected a conffile as being modified and then prompted the > user for an action. As there is no user input, this fails. But this is not > the real problem, the real problem is that this prompt shows up in the first > place, as there was nobody modifying this conffile at all, the package has > just been installed and upgraded... > > This is a violation of policy 10.7.3, see > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s10.7.3, which > says "[These scripts handling conffiles] must not ask unnecessary questions > (particularly during upgrades), and must otherwise be good citizens." > > http://wiki.debian.org/DpkgConffileHandling should help with figuring out how > to do this properly. > > In http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00675.html and followups > it > has been agreed that these bugs are to be filed with severity serious.
Hi,
I agree this is a bug, and it is outlined in the NEWS.Debian file, in a
way.
The problem is I couldn't figure out how to actually fix it. I looked at
dpkg.org about removing and renaming conffiles, but the problem isn't
there: the bug is with the older package, that doesn't properly install
the configuration files, so that the checksums recorded by dpkg are
wrong.
Basically, we're trying to switch away from ucf here, and it's not going
as smoothly as I wanted.
I haven't found how to change the stored checksums in a meaningful
way. dpkg-maintscript-helper doesn't allow updating the stored checksums
arbitrarily. If you have an idea of how to do this, I am all ears.
A.
--
Le Québec ne rêve plus de devenir une société modèle: voilà son
problème d'environnement.
- Pierre Dansereau (1911 - 2011)
pgp6aCLzvxE0T.pgp
Description: PGP signature
