[asp16@alu.ua.es: Re: remove stale conffiles?]

Jörg Sommer joerg@alea.gnuu.de
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 <asp16@alu.ua.es> -----

From: Adeodato Simó <asp16@alu.ua.es>
To: Joerg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de>
Subject: Re: remove stale conffiles?
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 19:09:16 +0200
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 266981-quiet@bugs.debian.org
Mail-Followup-To: Joerg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de>,
	debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 266981-quiet@bugs.debian.org

* Joerg Sommer [Thu, 05 May 2005 20:39:57 +0000]:
> Hi,

> 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.

> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=266981

> 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.


Adeodato Simó
    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 -----