[Logcheck-devel] Bug#453519: logcheck-database: amavisd-new file looks like the one shipped by amavisd-new

[Frédéric Brière]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 03:39:06PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Or are there a lot of existing cases where we know that the dropped
> configuration files contained bad rules?

Probably not, but I'm too lazy to check.  :)

A non-empty cracking.d/logcheck might be problematic, though.

> > In an ideal world, I guess we should ask the user.  The wiki can afford

A somewhat convoluted way to do this would be to bring those files back
from the dead, empty aside from comments.  dpkg would then prompt the
user if those files had been modified (or if the user purged and
re-installed logcheck).  After one release cycle, we remove them for
good, deleting them if they are pristine, and leaving them in place
otherwise.

It's a somewhat ugly solution, and it doesn't for conflicting files
lacking a Replaces (amavisd-new, sendmail-base and thttpd).  It might be
useful for cracking.d/logcheck, though.


(Is it too late to curse the dpkg team?  <g>)

-- 
/*
 * Buddy system. Hairy. You really aren't expected to understand this
 *
 */
		-- From /usr/src/linux/mm/page_alloc.cA