Debian bug report logs - #995, boring messages

Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com:

Subject: Bug#995: dpkg conffiles processing bug (?)
Reply-To: Bill Mitchell <mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com>, debian-bugs@pixar.com
Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com
Resent-From: Bill Mitchell <mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com>
Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 03:18:01 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <debian-bugs-handler.995.0615031053812@pixar.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 20:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Mitchell <mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com>
To: debian-bugs@pixar.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950614200021.12927A-100000@bb29c>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

PACKAGE: dpkg
VERSION: 0.93.42
PACKAGE_REVISION: 0

After thinking about kermit /etc/skel files processing, I
decided to declare those files in conffiles, init them in
postinst if they were absent, and let let dpkg worry about
preserving them through upgrades and deleting them on package
removals.  It seemed logical to me, but it didn't work.

These files aren't present in the package, they're built in
the postinst if they're needed.  I had hoped that declaring
them as conffiles would get them preserved through an upgrade
if they were present at upgrade time, but they're apparently
de-installed when the old package is removed -- they're there
pre-upgrade but absent when the postinst runs.

I looked at /var/lib/dpkg/status, and they're listed as conffiles
there.  I'm holding off uploading my kermit upgrade for now in
case I misunderstand intended dpkg conffiles processing.

mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)

Message sent:

From: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: Bill Mitchell <mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com>
Subject: Bug#995: Acknowledgement (was: dpkg conffiles processing bug (?))
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950614200021.12927A-100000@bb29c>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950614200021.12927A-100000@bb29c>

Thank you for the problem report you have sent regarding Debian GNU/Linux.
This is an automatically generated reply, to let you know your message has
been received.  It is being forwarded to the developers' mailing list for
their attention; they will reply in due course.

If you wish to submit further information on your problem, please send
it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, but please ensure that the Subject
line of your message starts with "Bug#995" or "Re: Bug#995" so that
we can identify it as relating to the same problem.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, debian-bugs)

Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com:

Subject: Bug#995: dpkg conffiles processing bug (?)
Reply-To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson), debian-bugs@pixar.com
Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com
Resent-From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 10:33:09 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <debian-bugs-handler.995.06161027259444@pixar.com>
Message-Id: <m0sMIve-0000YYZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 18:42 BST
From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: Bill Mitchell <mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com>, debian-bugs@pixar.com
Newsgroups: chiark.mail.debian.devel
In-Reply-To: <mlist0615041916-987.iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
References: <mlist0615041916-987.iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk>

Bill Mitchell writes ("Bug#995: dpkg conffiles processing bug (?)"):
> After thinking about kermit /etc/skel files processing, I
> decided to declare those files in conffiles, init them in
> postinst if they were absent, and let let dpkg worry about
> preserving them through upgrades and deleting them on package
> removals.  It seemed logical to me, but it didn't work.

You should *either* list files in conffiles *or* process them
yourself.

If you process them yourself you need to add a postrm (if you don't
have one) and have it delete them if invoked with $1 == "purge".

> These files aren't present in the package, they're built in
> the postinst if they're needed.  I had hoped that declaring
> them as conffiles would get them preserved through an upgrade
> if they were present at upgrade time, but they're apparently
> de-installed when the old package is removed -- they're there
> pre-upgrade but absent when the postinst runs.

Declaring them as conffiles is interfering with your manual processing
- I wouldn't do it if I were you.

conffiles really works best for files that the package maintainer
expects most users to use unchanged or that they expect not to have to
change much themselves.  A good example is /etc/init.d/<foo>; a bad
example is /etc/smail/config (which for this reason isn't listed as a
conffile).

This should all be documented better, and there are some infelicities
in the current conffiles handling.  Please bear with me - ETA for the
alpha of the new C dpkg is now 2 weeks.

Ian.

Message sent:

From: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
Subject: Bug#995: Info received (was Bug#995: dpkg conffiles processing bug (?))
In-Reply-To: <m0sMIve-0000YYZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
References: <m0sMIve-0000YYZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report.  It has been forwarded to the developers to
accompany the original report.

If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring
that the Subject line starts with "Bug#995" or "Re: Bug#995" so that
we can identify it as relating to the same problem.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, debian-bugs)

Ian Jackson / iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk, with the debian-bugs tracking mechanism

This page last modified 06:43:02 GMT Wed 21 Jun