Package: base-files
Version: 6.8
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed the piuparts
upgrade test because dpkg detected a conffile as being modified and then
prompted the user for an action. As there is
On Mon, 21 May 2012, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 6.8
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed the piuparts
upgrade test because dpkg detected a conffile as being
On 2012-05-21 13:55, Santiago Vila wrote:
I would say that's not exact. dpkg does not detect a conffile as being
modified, dpkg detects the file as being different from the *default*,
which is probably correct.
Now we have to tell dpkg that some old file *is* the unchanged old
default ...
In
On Mon, 21 May 2012, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
I'd probably
* collect md5sums of all previous versions of the defaults (going back
to lenny, eventually even earlier as this is an essential package and we
don't want to annoy people with long grown systems ... don't forget
point releases (or
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 13:55:12 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
How is this supposed to be handled? The URLs you give explain how to
remove a conffile or how to rename it, but not how to make a conffile
when it was not a conffile.
Pretty much don't do that AFAIK.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To
On 2012-05-21 15:19, Santiago Vila wrote:
But checking md5sums should be dpkg job, that's precisely what the
conffile mechanism is for.
But dpkg does not know about the old files (because they were not
conffiles), so it can't to the job.
ucf might be able to cope with this, but I wouldn't use
6 matches
Mail list logo
