Helmut Grohne dixit:
>> Maybe the protective diversions also protect against this problem as well
>> as the problem of moved files? I unfortunately failed to spot where the
>> protective diversions were added in dh_movetouser (if that even is the
>> right place to be looking), so I'm fairly sure I'm missing something.
>
>dh_movetousr has nothing to do with protective diversions. It does not
>add nor remove diversions nor does it change any. All it changes is
>locations of files in the data.tar of a .deb. All of the protective
>diversions that we ever installed for DEP17 are managed in maintainer
>scripts and dh_movetousr does not touch maintainer scripts at all.
Huh? So the lots of diversions to /sbin/something.moved-to-usr I’ve
been seeing come from maintainer scripts?
But at what point does dpkg remove /bin/mksh vs. rename
/usr/bin/mksh.dpkg-new to /usr/bin/mksh? I thought the diversions
were needed so the latter doesn’t then get renamed?
Arrrrgh, this is all so complex and fragile. Are you really surprised
that maintainers are very much against this?
>In the first bug, Andrew stated that selecting the shell via debconf
>wasn't supported.
Still salty about this, as it worked in lenny and before, and the
Canonical agents who made dash the default shell unilaterally broke
this, refused cross-shell communication, ignored suggested patches
and sat out the rc bugs for 2 releases until we just gave up.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
„Cool, /usr/share/doc/mksh/examples/uhr.gz ist ja ein Grund,
mksh auf jedem System zu installieren.“
-- XTaran auf der OpenRheinRuhr, ganz begeistert
(EN: “[…]uhr.gz is a reason to install mksh on every system.”)
