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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply via email to