Your message dated Sat, 5 May 2012 23:03:56 +0200
with message-id <20120505210356.gg30...@torres.zugschlus.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#671460: possibly wrong debug output in rm_conffile
has caused the Debian Bug report #671460,
regarding possibly wrong debug output in rm_conffile
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
671460: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671460
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.3
Severity: minor
File: /usr/bin/dpkg-maintscript-helper
Hi,
in dpkg-maintscript-helper's rm_conffile function, the code goes to
lengths to set the PACKAGE variable correctly, but the debug output
"Executing $0 rm_conffile ..." still refers to
DPKG_MAINTSCRIPT_PACKAGE which may not be set. PACKAGE, however, seems
to be correct in more cases.
I am therefore wondering whether the debug output shouldn't be
referring to PACKAGE instead of DPKG_MAINTSCRIPT_PACKAGE.
Greetings
Marc
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 3.3.4-zgsrv20080 (SMP w/6 CPU cores; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages dpkg depends on:
ii libbz2-1.0 1.0.6-1
ii libc6 2.13-32
ii libselinux1 2.1.9-4
ii tar 1.26-4
ii xz-utils 5.1.1alpha+20110809-3
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.7.dfsg-1
dpkg recommends no packages.
Versions of packages dpkg suggests:
ii apt 0.9.2
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 11:49:12AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2012, Marc Haber wrote:
> > in dpkg-maintscript-helper's rm_conffile function, the code goes to
> > lengths to set the PACKAGE variable correctly, but the debug output
> > "Executing $0 rm_conffile ..." still refers to
> > DPKG_MAINTSCRIPT_PACKAGE which may not be set. PACKAGE, however, seems
> > to be correct in more cases.
>
> Well, we already require DPKG_MAINTSCRIPT_NAME and it's rather unlikely
> that one would manually set DPKG_MAINTSCRIPT_NAME but not
> DPKG_MAINTSCRIPT_PACKAGE.
It happened to me when I tried debugging from the command line. It got
me confused.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 31958061
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 31958062
--- End Message ---
