Hi!
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 16:33:09 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes (Re: dpkg vanishing conffiles - more complex/complete
specification):
New scheme:
* During unpack, [...]
I have implemented this and tested it and it works for me. It fixes
the spurious conffile prompt I
Frank Lichtenheld writes (Re: Bug#108587: dpkg vanishing conffiles - more
complex/complete specification):
Do you had any more conversation with Scott about this bug and the patch
or does this mail mark the latest status of it?
Just checking before investigating it for inclusion.
Right. We
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:33:09PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes (Re: dpkg vanishing conffiles - more complex/complete
specification):
New scheme:
* During unpack, [...]
I have implemented this and tested it and it works for me. It fixes
the spurious conffile prompt I
Ian Jackson writes (Re: dpkg vanishing conffiles - more complex/complete
specification):
New scheme:
* During unpack, [...]
I have implemented this and tested it and it works for me. It fixes
the spurious conffile prompt I was seeing and appears to work
otherwise.
Attached is a patch
Ian Jackson writes (dpkg vanishing conffiles - more complex/complete
specification):
* During conffile processing, [...]
How does dpkg know whether the conffile is has been removed from the
package and its conffiles because it's obsolete (in which case the
user should be asked whether to
This turns out to be somewhat harder than it looks.
dpkg does conffile processing during configuration. If anything goes
wrong during conffile processing, it stops there; it does not
(currently) keep a record in the status file of which conffiles have
been processed and which are as yet undone.
6 matches
Mail list logo
