[email@example.com: Re: remove stale conffiles?]
Thu, 19 May 2005 00:04:32 +0200
Because this mail does not go to this mailing list, I forward it. It is
the answer (for me) to the question: how to deal with 00site.sl and
----- Forwarded message from Adeodato Simó <firstname.lastname@example.org> -----
From: Adeodato Simó <email@example.com>
To: Joerg Sommer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: remove stale conffiles?
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 19:09:16 +0200
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Mail-Followup-To: Joerg Sommer <email@example.com>,
* Joerg Sommer [Thu, 05 May 2005 20:39:57 +0000]:
> in an old version of jed-common two conffiles 00site.sl and 99debian.sl
> were included. But caused by some reason they aren't removed on upgrade.
> Becomes a conffile held if it was modified when it is removed in a new
> package version?
If by "held" you mean, "not removed", yes, that's what happens, _even
if_ the conffile was not modified.
> What does dpkg so with such conffiles they are removed
> from one to the next package version?
Ignore them, and don't remove them on purge either (since the file is
no longer a conffile of the package at the version the purge occurs).
This is a bug in dpkg, see #108587 and its brothers.
> What to do with this bug report? Is this a problem of jed-common?
Well, if you care you could do something similar to the proposed
solution for #308252.
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
Listening to: Johnny Cash - When the Roll Is Called Up Yon
A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
----- End forwarded message -----