On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:04:30PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 10:22:40 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Mittwoch, 25. November 2009, Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > > > Package purging left files on system: > > > /var/cache/man/pt not owned > > > /var/cache/man/pt/cat1 not owned > > [...] > > > Judging from this analyis, this looks like a false positive... > > > > I think it is too, but I'm not entirely sure, so I would appreciate a > > comment > > from someone more familar with "man" then I am, that's why I've added d-qa@ > > to cc: > > > > So far, piuparts has been ignoring left over files with the following > > patterns: > > > > "/var/cache/man/(.*)/index.db", > > "/var/cache/man/index.db", > > > > (obviously, there are more :) > > > > Looking at the failed piuparts logs, I see there are more with left over > > files > > in /var/cache/man/.*/cat? - should piuparts just ignore /var/cache/man? > > Comments welcome. > > Ignoring /var/cache/man/ seems the most reasonable course of action to > me. The man-db package is the one handling those databases, it just > seems logical to me that it should be the one in charge of removing it > when purged.
It makes sense for mandb to observe that a hierarchy of manual pages has gone away entirely (e.g. no more /usr/share/man/pt) and remove the corresponding database. Could somebody file a bug on man-db for this, or reassign/clone an existing bug? I wasn't sure if there was already a bug report for this so I haven't filed one myself. Ignoring /var/cache/man seems fairly harmless in the meantime. (man-db of course does remove /var/cache/man when it itself is purged, but we could perhaps do better.) -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
