On Friday 08 October 2010 15:38:22 Raphael Hertzog wrote: > While this avoids the conffile prompt in all cases, it also means that if > the new conffiguration file has changes compared to the old one, the user > doesn't get to see them... instead they are stored in .dpkg-new without > any prompt.
Which brings the question: how can we be sure that the user should not be notified of configuration changes introduced by the package maintainer ? > BTW, .dpkg-new is an extension used by dpkg to unpack new versions of > files during dpkg --unpack. So it will be automatically removed in the > next upgrade of that package... because the hash of the distributed file > has not changed and hence it believes that nothing needs to be done. > > At the very least, I think we should move <new> in <new>.dpkg-dist to be > consistent with what dpkg would have done if the user had seen a prompt > and answered to keep his old file. Do you agree with this? Currently, *.dpkg-dist means that some changes happened that were important enough to trigger a prompt. If they cannot be distinguished from *.dpkg-new, sys admin will not be able to focus on more important changes. May be we'd need to distinguish - after upgrades - new conf files with important changes from new conf files with trivial changes (e.g. comments) > But can we do better and somehow find out the hash on the new conffile > during the preinst (inspecting /var/lib/dpkg/info/tmp.ci/ maybe?) so that > we can put the old conffile in place of the new when we know that it would > have resulted in a prompt anyway? Sorry, you lost me there. Dominique -- http://config-model.wiki.sourceforge.net/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/ http://www.ohloh.net/accounts/ddumont -o- http://ddumont.wordpress.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201010111007.59930.dominique.dum...@hp.com
