Hi there, On Friday 25 December 2009, Holger wrote: > during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed the piuparts > upgrade test because dpkg detected a conffile as being modified and then > prompted the user for an action. As there is no user input, this fails. But > this is not the real problem, the real problem is that this prompt shows up > in the first place, as there was nobody modifying this conffile at all, the > package has just been installed and upgraded... [...] > Installing new version of config > file /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/90science-config ... > > Configuration file `/etc/blends/science/science.conf' > ==> File on system created by you or by a script. > ==> File also in package provided by package maintainer. > What would you like to do about it ? Your options are: > Y or I : install the package maintainer's version > N or O : keep your currently-installed version > D : show the differences between the versions > Z : background this process to examine the situation > The default action is to keep your current version. > *** science.conf (Y/I/N/O/D/Z) [default=N] ? dpkg: error processing > science-con > fig (--configure): > EOF on stdin at conffile prompt > Errors were encountered while processing: > science-config > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
is there any special reason for providing /etc/blends/science/science.conf with the package and regenerating it via blend-update-usermenus through /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/90science-config too? Thanks and with kind regards, Jan. -- Never write mail to <w...@spamfalle.info>, you have been warned! -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d-- s+: a C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E--- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M V- PS PE Y++ PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI D+ G++ e++ h---- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
