Hello: Thank you very much for taking the time to write.
On 29 Jun 2021 at 19:05, Marc Haber wrote: > The "exim installer" is called dpkg and is a core package ... Yes, I am quite aware of that. Which is *exactly* the reason I did not file a bug against dpkg. If anything, in the many years I have been using Linux, dpkg has always worked seamlessly every time and never shown me a bug. Kudos for that. 8^) But the bug I filed is against exim 4.94.2. > You have a point ... Yes, I *do* have a point. But unfortunately I am not being able to get it across. That dpkg pop up a *different* warning was meant to be an example of sorts, not to be taken literally. To drive home the concept, so to speak. Maybe the wrong example as I am not versed in the inner workings of dpkg (or anything Linux for that matter) although today I learnt something about how dpkg works. Like I have said previously: The problem is with the exim 4.94.2 package. It should *not* be able/allowed to use *any* of a previously installed version's configuration files when updated. Much less (and yes, it *is* a bug) offer the user the choice of keeping *any* of them when it gets installed by dpkg. Now, *how* it does that, whether through a well written script, a previous [c]apt-get purge exim4[/c] or dev-magic (joke!) should be absolutely transparent to the end user and result in a properly installed MTA. And not a hopelessly broken one piling up warnings in paniclog. > I apologize, but there is nothing the Debian exim maintainers ... So I gather. Well, that's that. I did my part and reported the problem. It is now up to the exim maintainers to do what they think is best. Greetings. CIV