bug 266981

Jörg Sommer joerg@alea.gnuu.de
Sun, 1 May 2005 23:48:33 +0200

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Rafael Laboissiere schrieb am Sun 01. May, 18:41 (+0200) :
> * J=F6rg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> [2005-05-01 16:54]:
> > what to do with #266981? It discribes that 00site.sl and 99defaults.sl
> > aren't removed from /etc/jed-init.d/. But in the woody and unstable
> > version these files aren't in the package. Maybe there where problems on
> > the system of the bug report submitter while updating to the version
> > without 00site.sl and 99defaults.sl
> I think that these files existed at some point in testing.  People who
> installed the version of the jed-common package that contained them have =
> files left in the system after the upgrade.

Do you know why? Have the changed it or why have dpkg left them? Can you
say, which version I have to install to get this problem?

> > Should we tag this as wontfix or unreproducable or should we close this
> > bug report, because it problem doesn't exist in current version.
> No, according to what I wrote above, this is a real bug.  We should remove


> them in one of the maintainer scripts of the jed-common package.  The
> postinst script seems to be the best place for doing it.

Why not in preinst to avoid conflicts with a new package.=20

> J=F6rg, do you want to implement this, or should I do it?

Yes, I do it.

Regards, J=F6rg.

Ich halte ihn zwar f=FCr einen Schurken und das was er sagt f=FCr
falsch - aber ich bin bereit mein Leben daf=FCr einzusetzen, da=DF
er seine Meinung sagen kann.		(Voltair)

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)