On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 10:52:16 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 05:13:00AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Yes, that's on purpose, otherwise the database could end up with > > multiple instances of non-coinstallable packages, which would break > > lots of internal and external assumptions. And yes, any package could > > contain conffiles, in the libwine case I'd assume it's just the postrm > > maintainer scripts that remains. > > That doesn't track. That would require all conffiles to be split off > into architecture:all packages for no good reason. The packages is > M-A: foreign. That imho means it will have to work with its conffiles > from any architecture, i.e. the conffiles need to be architecture > independent. As M-A:foreign package libwine:i386 is a full replacement > for libwine:amd64 in every way and that should include conffiles in > dpkg.
As I explicitly said above (“any package could contain conffiles“), conffiles work just fine in M-A:same, they are just ref-counted as any other files, I don't see where you got that impression. > Are you sayind that configuration files must be purged when > cross-grading packages? That looks like a serious implementation flaw > in dpkg. I don't see where I said that either, I've just said that *packages* in config-files state need to be purged whenever there's multiple instances present and one wants to switch to a non-M-A:same packages. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
