Hi Steve,
maybe you've missed that question to you in a conversation we had on
-devel. Can you please have a look?
Regards, Fr'Fullquote follows'ank
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, you
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, you're right that this code unconditionally uses the user's version of
>> the conffile when moving it, instead of allowing the conffile question to
>> happen.
>>
>> The way to get the conffile prompt for
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, you're right that this code unconditionally uses the user's version of
> the conffile when moving it, instead of allowing the conffile question to
> happen.
>
> The way to get the conffile prompt for a user-modified file is
Someone should correct
* Bill Allombert
| On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 01:40:12PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > It can't, since dpkg doesn't re-exec itself.
|
| Does not that depend whether apt special-case dpkg upgrade ?
We do support upgrades with other tools than apt, so while it might
cover the common cases, you c
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 01:40:12PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Bill Allombert
>
> | On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> | > I do know also that beginning with the dpkg version in etch, the
> Conflicts:
> | > is no longer required when moving conffiles, it's po
* Bill Allombert
| On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
| > I do know also that beginning with the dpkg version in etch, the Conflicts:
| > is no longer required when moving conffiles, it's possible to use Replaces:
| > by itself.
|
| I wonder if a versioned depend on
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> I do know also that beginning with the dpkg version in etch, the Conflicts:
>> is no longer required when moving conffiles, it's possible to use Replaces:
>> by itself.
>
> I wonder if a
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I do know also that beginning with the dpkg version in etch, the Conflicts:
> is no longer required when moving conffiles, it's possible to use Replaces:
> by itself.
I wonder if a versioned depend on dpkg can ensure the new dpkg is
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 09:07:12AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Maybe I'm dumb, but this code doesn't seem correct to me, in the sense
> that it doesn't do the right thing. Let's consider a couple of possible
> cases:
> 1. The conffile at the old place (or package) is the same as the one in
>
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 01:32:43AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > After an upgrade and answering all of the conffile prompts, does
>> > /var/lib/dpkg/info/nagios-plu
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 01:32:43AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > After an upgrade and answering all of the conffile prompts, does
> > /var/lib/dpkg/info/nagios-plugins.conffiles still exist and reference these
> >
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> After an upgrade and answering all of the conffile prompts, does
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/nagios-plugins.conffiles still exist and reference these
> files? Depending on what dpkg is really doing here, it may well be possible
> to handle
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So to fix this within your preinst, you could check whether each file's
> md5sum matches the known md5sum from sarge, and if so remove the file. If
> the md5sum /doesn't/ match, the conffile prompt should happen as normal.
The conffile present might al
sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if anyone here has some dpkg-fu handy off the top of their heads that i
> could use to further deduce what's going on i'd be happy to hear it.
DPKg
{
options "--debug=221"
}
in a file in /etc/apt/conf.d/ should do (this is untested, please check
the d
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:28:34PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > so the question is: what am i forgetting to do? i'm guessing that the
>> > problem has something to do with the original package still being
>
James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It should just be a matter of removing the files from the old package
> and letting the new ones take their place (with a backup if there are
> any user changes). A little grepping around in /var/lib/dpkg/info
> turned up this snippet for removing conffiles
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:49:16AM +0200, sean finney wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 17:21 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't know what happens if there is a versioned Conflicts/Replaces
> > instead, and the conflicted-with package remains installed in a newer
> > version as a result. It's
hey steve,
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 17:21 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't know what happens if there is a versioned Conflicts/Replaces
> instead, and the conflicted-with package remains installed in a newer
> version as a result. It's certainly possible that doesn't work nearly as
> smoothly,
hey james,
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 22:27 -0400, James Vega wrote:
> It should just be a matter of removing the files from the old package
> and letting the new ones take their place (with a backup if there are
> any user changes). A little grepping around in /var/lib/dpkg/info
> turned up this snip
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 12:40:33AM +0200, sean finney wrote:
> > also, if you have an answer to the original question it'd be
> > appreciated. i'd really really like to avoid using ucf, since there's
> > something like 40 conffiles
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 12:40:33AM +0200, sean finney wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 13:21 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > No, it's a general problem: dpkg won't notice that a conffile has been
> > > moved from one package to the other, no matter whether it declares
> > > "Replaces" or whatever
hey steve,
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 13:21 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > No, it's a general problem: dpkg won't notice that a conffile has been
> > moved from one package to the other, no matter whether it declares
> > "Replaces" or whatever. There's simply no solution within dpkg at the
> > momen
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:28:34PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > so the question is: what am i forgetting to do? i'm guessing that the
> > problem has something to do with the original package still being
> > present (as a metapackage)?
> No, it's a gene
sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so the question is: what am i forgetting to do? i'm guessing that the
> problem has something to do with the original package still being
> present (as a metapackage)?
No, it's a general problem: dpkg won't notice that a conffile has been
moved from one p
24 matches
Mail list logo
