I'm Ccing my fellows at the squid team in case they want to add something here, for the full conversation, please see #985390.
I have finished testing the changes for -9, I don't know if I like it more now or if it would be better to just leave the comment on the NEWS file and don't echo anything on the console when we purge. This is what it does now when we purge squid if we have squid-openssl installed: (A ler a base de datos ... 603757 files and directories currently installed.) Purging configuration files for squid (4.13-9) ... Log and cache files are not automatically removed. These files are used by squid and squid-openssl flavours. Remove logs (/var/log/squid) and cache (/var/spool/squid) yourself if you no longer need them. As you can see there is a lot of text but the user doesn't really need to see any of this as he has squid-ssl installed, so I could try to only echo if we don't have the other flavour installed, but... When we purge all of squid, in this case I'm purging squid-common and squid-openssl, no piece of squid remains installed... (A ler a base de datos ... 603757 files and directories currently installed.) Removing squid-openssl (4.13-9) ... Purging configuration files for squid-openssl (4.13-9) ... Log and cache files are not automatically removed. These files are used by squid and squid-openssl flavours. Remove logs (/var/log/squid) and cache (/var/spool/squid) yourself if you no longer need them. dpkg: warning: while removing squid-openssl, directory '/var/spool/squid' not em dpkg: warning: while removing squid-openssl, directory '/var/log/squid' not empt Removing squid-common (4.13-9) ... Processing triggers for man-db (2.9.4-2) ... As you can see, we get the text I wrote for -9 and also the dpkg warning. So... I'm thinking, what if we don't echo anything and let dpkg do its work, and leave the note I just added to NEWS and maybe add a README.Debian file explaining the flavours, how they share the cache, the logs and the config file and that we are not cleaning logs and cache, and even sugesting that to clean the cache a mkfs can be faster (like the comment on the postrm says)? What do you think, maybe that way is even cleaner for the user. Regards... -- Manty/BestiaTester -> http://manty.net
