> > Minimal (untested) change, but that should make it, no?
>
> > Another brutal solution is of course testing the existence of the
> > directory before running the find on it
>
> Yes, this change appears to be sufficient to solve the current problem.
> You'll want to quote the "$h", btw.
OK.
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 08:34:47AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Definitely..:)
> I'm afraid that my NMU, intended for simple l10n stuff, just revealed
> that problem.
> > I believe you MUST be able to remove a package more than once,
> > idempotently (policy 6.2), but currently, you cannot.
Quoting J S Bygott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Package: ca-certificates
> Version: 20061027
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 6.2 (sometimes interacts non-idempotently), 3.9 (error
> (missing dir) not checked for), 6.8 (removes files at wrong time)
>
> The postrm, called with "remove", chang
Package: ca-certificates
Version: 20061027
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 6.2 (sometimes interacts non-idempotently), 3.9 (error
(missing dir) not checked for), 6.8 (removes files at wrong time)
The postrm, called with "remove", changes into a directory that
does not always exist. The r
4 matches
Mail list logo
