> I would suggest renaming the binary -doc packages, and providing the
> original ones.
Is this better than what is suggested in the bug report (detect and remove
symlink in preinst)?
If packages will be renamed, users won't get transparent upgrade to new
packages.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
I would suggest renaming the binary -doc packages, and providing the
original ones.
Sven Joachim writes:
> Package: gcc-4.1-doc-non-dfsg
> Version: 4.1.1-nf1
> Severity: serious
>
> In previous versions of gcc-4.1-doc (up to 4.1.1-10),
> /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.1-doc was a symlink to gcc-4.1-base.
Package: gcc-4.1-doc-non-dfsg
Version: 4.1.1-nf1
Severity: serious
In previous versions of gcc-4.1-doc (up to 4.1.1-10),
/usr/share/doc/gcc-4.1-doc was a symlink to gcc-4.1-base. Because
dpkg follows the symlink when upgrading the package, your files end up
in /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.1-base, overwri
3 matches
Mail list logo