Hi Steve,
maybe you've missed that question to you in a conversation we had on
-devel. Can you please have a look?
Regards, Fr'Fullquote follows'ank
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, you're right that
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, you're right that this code unconditionally uses the user's version of
the conffile when moving it, instead of allowing the conffile question to
happen.
The way to get the conffile prompt for a user-modified
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, you're right that this code unconditionally uses the user's version of
the conffile when moving it, instead of allowing the conffile question to
happen.
The way to get the conffile prompt for a user-modified file is
Someone should correct this
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 01:32:43AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
After an upgrade and answering all of the conffile prompts, does
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 09:07:12AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Maybe I'm dumb, but this code doesn't seem correct to me, in the sense
that it doesn't do the right thing. Let's consider a couple of possible
cases:
1. The conffile at the old place (or package) is the same as the one in
the
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I do know also that beginning with the dpkg version in etch, the Conflicts:
is no longer required when moving conffiles, it's possible to use Replaces:
by itself.
I wonder if a versioned depend on dpkg can ensure the new dpkg is
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I do know also that beginning with the dpkg version in etch, the Conflicts:
is no longer required when moving conffiles, it's possible to use Replaces:
by itself.
I wonder if a versioned
* Bill Allombert
| On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
| I do know also that beginning with the dpkg version in etch, the Conflicts:
| is no longer required when moving conffiles, it's possible to use Replaces:
| by itself.
|
| I wonder if a versioned depend on
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 01:40:12PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Bill Allombert
| On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
| I do know also that beginning with the dpkg version in etch, the
Conflicts:
| is no longer required when moving conffiles, it's possible
* Bill Allombert
| On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 01:40:12PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| It can't, since dpkg doesn't re-exec itself.
|
| Does not that depend whether apt special-case dpkg upgrade ?
We do support upgrades with other tools than apt, so while it might
cover the common cases, you
hey james,
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 22:27 -0400, James Vega wrote:
It should just be a matter of removing the files from the old package
and letting the new ones take their place (with a backup if there are
any user changes). A little grepping around in /var/lib/dpkg/info
turned up this snippet
hey steve,
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 17:21 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't know what happens if there is a versioned Conflicts/Replaces
instead, and the conflicted-with package remains installed in a newer
version as a result. It's certainly possible that doesn't work nearly as
smoothly, a
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:49:16AM +0200, sean finney wrote:
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 17:21 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't know what happens if there is a versioned Conflicts/Replaces
instead, and the conflicted-with package remains installed in a newer
version as a result. It's
James Vega [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It should just be a matter of removing the files from the old package
and letting the new ones take their place (with a backup if there are
any user changes). A little grepping around in /var/lib/dpkg/info
turned up this snippet for removing conffiles.
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:28:34PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
sean finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so the question is: what am i forgetting to do? i'm guessing that the
problem has something to do with the original package still being
present (as
sean finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if anyone here has some dpkg-fu handy off the top of their heads that i
could use to further deduce what's going on i'd be happy to hear it.
DPKg
{
options --debug=221
}
in a file in /etc/apt/conf.d/ should do (this is untested, please check
the
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So to fix this within your preinst, you could check whether each file's
md5sum matches the known md5sum from sarge, and if so remove the file. If
the md5sum /doesn't/ match, the conffile prompt should happen as normal.
The conffile present might also
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
After an upgrade and answering all of the conffile prompts, does
/var/lib/dpkg/info/nagios-plugins.conffiles still exist and reference these
files? Depending on what dpkg is really doing here, it may well be possible
to handle
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 01:32:43AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
After an upgrade and answering all of the conffile prompts, does
/var/lib/dpkg/info/nagios-plugins.conffiles still exist and reference these
files?
hey d-d,
in sarge, the nagios-plugins is a single monolithic package with a
number of plugins and config files (mostly with a 1:1 mapping).
in sid/etch, the nagios-plugins package is split into two packages,
nagios-plugins-basic, nagios-plugins-standard, each of which contains a
subset of the
sean finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so the question is: what am i forgetting to do? i'm guessing that the
problem has something to do with the original package still being
present (as a metapackage)?
No, it's a general problem: dpkg won't notice that a conffile has been
moved from one
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:28:34PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
sean finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so the question is: what am i forgetting to do? i'm guessing that the
problem has something to do with the original package still being
present (as a metapackage)?
No, it's a general
hey steve,
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 13:21 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
No, it's a general problem: dpkg won't notice that a conffile has been
moved from one package to the other, no matter whether it declares
Replaces or whatever. There's simply no solution within dpkg at the
moment.
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 12:40:33AM +0200, sean finney wrote:
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 13:21 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
No, it's a general problem: dpkg won't notice that a conffile has been
moved from one package to the other, no matter whether it declares
Replaces or whatever. There's
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:21:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 12:40:33AM +0200, sean finney wrote:
also, if you have an answer to the original question it'd be
appreciated. i'd really really like to avoid using ucf, since there's
something like 40 conffiles shared
25 matches
Mail list logo
