On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Thomas Hood writes ("Re: conffile purging and maintainer scripts"):
> > If a file /etc/foo was formerly a conffile of the package but no
> > longer is so then /etc/foo should be dealt with in the preinst or
> > postinst.
>
Thomas Hood writes ("Re: conffile purging and maintainer scripts"):
> If a file /etc/foo was formerly a conffile of the package but no
> longer is so then /etc/foo should be dealt with in the preinst or
> postinst.
Regrettably this is currently true. I think this is a bug in
Anthony DeRobertis writes ("Re: conffile purging and maintainer scripts"):
> 5. Decide you'd rather keep locally installed FOO, purge Debian FOO package.
DDTT
> Solution to this one is that admins should follow the FHS and put their
> config files in /etc/local/ :-D
No
Roger Leigh wrote:
> This updated version should cater for both the old and new behaviour.
> Any comments?
Maintainers using this should be aware that it will mistakenly delete
conffiles that have been converted to e.g., ucf configuration files.
This is, of course, unavoidable.
It will also dele
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Roger Leigh wrote:
>>> Until last month, dpkg "forgot" about conffiles which were removed or
>>> moved on package upgrade. As a consequence, maintainers had to
>>> remember to purge these conffiles "by hand" in
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Until last month, dpkg "forgot" about conffiles which were removed or
>> moved on package upgrade. As a consequence, maintainers had to
>> remember to purge these conffiles "by hand" in the package postrm
>> script.
>
> I just want t
Roger Leigh wrote:
> Until last month, dpkg "forgot" about conffiles which were removed or
> moved on package upgrade. As a consequence, maintainers had to
> remember to purge these conffiles "by hand" in the package postrm
> script.
I just want to highlight the word "these" above in order to re
7 matches
Mail list logo
