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 handled
by
[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
last
# 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/gpm.conf
[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 via
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]
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
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
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
Severity: serious
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.
[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
rewritten,
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
