Le vendredi 8 mars 2013 03:32:29, Stefan Lippers-Hollmann a écrit : > Hi > > On Thursday 07 March 2013, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > > tags 655969 + patch > > thanks > > > > Le samedi 26 janvier 2013 19:22:23, Jonathan Wiltshire a écrit : > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 01:34:08AM +0100, Stefan Lippers-Hollmann wrote: > > > > Thanks for the notice, while I don't exactly share that severity > > > > classification (although that is of course covered by the policy > > > > text), I'll work on this as soon as possible. > > > > > > Ping? It's been a year, and with a popcon of over 60,000 a *lot* of > > > people are going to start seeing this prompt very soon... > > > > What about this patch? It checks whether the md5 of the > > lirc/hardware.conf conffile installed on the system matches the md5 of > > the file as modified by the postinst in an automatic install. If that is > > the case, it sets the file back to the content as shipped in the .deb > > package so that dpkg doesn't detect the file as modified. > > > > I reproduced the bug in pbuilder and the bug disappear when using this > > patch. > > […] > > Thanks for looking into this bug, the patch itself is correct and will > avoid the reported piuparts upgrade issue (which is technically RC), so > please feel free to upload the NMU (I'd appreciate it).
Great, I've been suggested to add a test for the version being upgraded from and testing if the file exist. Once done, I'll upload it (should be today or sunday). > > Just be aware that it only papers over a larger issue that forces > most lircd users actually driving various lirc hardware to reconfigure > their config file regardless of this change; please see > http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg- lirc/lirc/trunk/debian/NEWS?view=mark > up or > https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2012/04/msg00076.html > for background information. Ack, the patch is not as useful as it could be. Can't lirc be installed by a Recommends dependency? If yes, it might be that the package is not of interest of the user and this message would thus annoy him/her. If lirc is on the contrary always installed when the user intend to use it, then the best approach is probably to tag it wheezy-ignore. It would be an even smaller change than this patch. > > For these reasons, I probably would have asked for a wheezy-ignore, in > order to get a complete fix into jessie, rather than only fixing the > reported bug. However your proposed nmudiff won't interfere with those > for-jessie changes and I'd appreciate if you could upload it. If lirc is always installed to be used (never pulled by a Recommends), then tag it wheezy-ignore is probably the best approach indeed. Thanks for the background. > > Thanks a lot. > > Regards > Stefan Lippers-Hollmann > > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=14;bug=655969 Best regards, Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
