On 2008-11-09 16:43 +0100, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > I have two systems. Both track unstable, and have package > locales at version 2.0.16. > > On one system, package locales owns /etc/default/locale, on the other, > it doesn't. Should the file be owned by locales or not?
It shouldn't, but on my system it is as well. > Could the situation arise by upgrades? One system is 4 years old > (upgraded weekly or better), the other just two months old. Surely it > isn't architecture dependent (one is x86, the second is amd64)? It depends on if you ever had locales 2.6.1-2 installed. That version mistakenly shipped /etc/default/locale as a conffile, which was reverted in the next upload. See #437404 and #441360. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]