Re: Incorrect use of dpkg conffile suffixes and lintian checks
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Maybe we could integrate those shell functions into the dpkg package
> > itself until dpkg is fixed to handle them better. At least, dpkg could
> > replace them with no-op when the proper support is in place.
> A fix in dpkg would, IMO, be ideal. I think that the case of dropped
> conffiles should really be being handled properly by dpkg in any case.
> I'm not sure why it can't just keep track of them until you purge the
> package, or delete them outright. Either way, I don't see the need to
> leave such as basic task to be implemented by every package maintainer
> who ever removes a conffile.
Guillem said he would investigate how much work it is to fix dpkg in this
regard. But w've lived with this for years without much problems so I
> In the meantime, having the shell functions in dpkg itself would be
> very useful. However, how will etch->lenny upgrades work without a
> new dpkg containing the functions?
A simple versioned dependency is enough for using them in the postinst and
the new dpkg will be unpacked before the configuration of any package
depending on it.
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :