[Justin Pryzby]
> Are you talking about the case that the file is at some defualt-ish
> "version" 1, then updated to v2, then to v3, and then the admin
> manually "updates" in such a way that it happens to be identical to
> v2?
I'm saying we can't tell whether you modified the file since it was
l
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:54:09PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Justin Pryzby]
> > > The problem here is that we didn't forcibly add the md5sum of the
> > > previous non-ucf file to the ucf database. So it was marked as
> > > modified, then you didn't install any new config file version han
[Justin Pryzby]
> Hmm. dpkg automatically handles it for conffiles. I suppose what
> you mean is that, for configuration files, admin changes must not be
> lost on upgrade. Instead, the file should be parsed, possibly
> storing the values temporarily via debconf database, and the file
> rewritt
package gpm
severity 326644 normal
thankee
[Guillem Jover]
> Marking this bug wontfix, but I don't really see the point in keeping
> this open, and I think that RC is an exaggeration on the magnitude of
> the problem. Peter?
Right. As far as I know we correctly preserve local admin settings.
Th
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:58AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 11:56:23AM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 06:32:12AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 02:13:24PM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > Package: gpm
> > > > Severi
package gpm
tag 326644 wontfix sarge
retitle 326644 gpm: ucf considers non-ucf config file manually modified
thanks
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 11:56:23AM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> # Severity change pending a mutual agreement of the problem.
> reopen 326644
> thanks
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at
[Justin Pryzby]
> Then why does it prompt me? Does prerm remove the conffile after
> parsing it?
That's a really good question. ucf is supposed to take care of this
type of stuff - knowing when a config file was changed by the admin and
when it was only changed by the package. ucf support appe
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 11:15:36AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Justin Pryzby]
> > Based on my understanding of the situation, an old version of GPM had
> > a conffile, which is now a UCF-handled configuration file, no? If
> > this is correct, I propose that GPM should parse any existing
>
[Justin Pryzby]
> Based on my understanding of the situation, an old version of GPM had
> a conffile, which is now a UCF-handled configuration file, no? If
> this is correct, I propose that GPM should parse any existing
> conffile, and determine all the values it sets, and store those
> values vi
# Severity change pending a mutual agreement of the problem.
reopen 326644
thanks
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 06:32:12AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 02:13:24PM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Package: gpm
> > Severity: serious
> > Version: 1.19.6-21
> > File: /etc/gp
Package: gpm
Severity: serious
Version: 1.19.6-21
File: /etc/gpm.conf
Justification: maintscripts apparently modify conffile (violates: 10.7.3)
While doing a dist upgrade:
Preparing to replace gpm 1.19.6-20 (using .../gpm_1.19.6-21_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement gpm ...
I got a message
11 matches
Mail list logo
