Package: cruft Version: 0.9.6-0.4 Severity: normal Tags: patch
Cruft's filter file for itself, /usr/lib/cruft/filters/cruft , contains a small mistake. Here is the patch: --- cruft.dist 1998-04-13 17:40:45.000000000 +0100 +++ cruft 2005-10-15 13:53:26.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ /etc/cruft/explain/* -/etc/cruft/filter/* +/etc/cruft/filters/* /var/spool/cruft/expl_* /var/spool/cruft/file_* /var/spool/cruft/miss_* This bug also occurs in experimental 0.9.6-0.8 Can we make a case for some of the bugfixes to cruft filters making it into the revision of stable? I'm thinking of, at least, the fixes to /usr/lib/cruft/explain/init_d /usr/lib/cruft/filters/dpkg (both fixed in experimental) The case would be: (1) a substantial gain in usefulness (less spurious cruft reported); (2) many users would benefit (see popcon); (3) no danger of breaking anything. What does Anthony Towns think? I realize it's borderline with regard to what 'stable' is for, but wouldn't every user of the package be grateful? Can we not argue that cruft shipped with bad filters is sufficiently broken to warrant a revision to stable? (PS: wonderful package, even with broken filters) -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.4.27-2-686 Locale: LANG=en_GB, LC_CTYPE=en_GB (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Versions of packages cruft depends on: ii file 4.12-1 Determines file type using "magic" ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
