Bug#163657: marked as done ([CONFFILE] dpkg: should support conffile hijacking)
Your message dated Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:05:47 -0500
with message-id <email@example.com>
and subject line Bug#234286: debian-policy: log file should be in packages' file list
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Oct 2002 12:20:01 +0000
>From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Oct 07 07:20:01 2002
Received: from smtp07.wxs.nl [188.8.131.52]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 17yWrh-0006cx-00; Mon, 07 Oct 2002 07:20:01 -0500
Received: from thanatos.yahoo.com ([184.108.40.206]) by
smtp07.wxs.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id
H3M28G02.2TJ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:19:28 +0200
Received: by thanatos.yahoo.com (Postfix, from userid 500)
id 333A53EC7D; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:19:23 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Thomas Hood" <email@example.com>
To: "Debian Bug Tracking System" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: dpkg: should support conffile hijacking
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.99.62
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:19:22 +0200
Suppose you have a package, foo, with conffile /etc/foo,
and it is replaced by package foo2, which handles /etc/foo
by means of maintainer scripts.
The following problem arises:
1. Remove (not purge) foo
2. Install foo2
3. Purge foo
The last step purges /etc/foo, even though this is now
managed by foo2!
At present, policy says that foo2 shouldn't touch /etc/foo,
since it is a conffile (belonging to foo). However, there
are cases where one wants to switch from managing some
configuration file, perhaps one with a standard name, the
conffile way to managing it the maintainer script way.
One such case is bsd-ftpd, which replaces ftpd.
(See #68703.) To support this, it would appear that dpkg
needs to be extended.
There are different ways to do this. One way is to add
a field to the control file which declares that a package
will use a certain filename for configuration purposes.
The presence of this field in foo2's control file, e.g.,
would cause dpkg to remove /etc/foo from foo's list of
conffiles. Then, /etc/foo would not be deleted when foo
Alternatively, a new field could be invented that declared
a stronger conflict that Conflicts: does -- namely, a
conflict that requires purging of the conflicting package
before installation of the replacing one.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.0
Kernel: Linux thanatos 2.4.20-pre8-ac1 #1 Mon Sep 30 10:20:53 CEST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=
Versions of packages dpkg depends on:
ii dselect 1.10.4 a user tool to manage Debian packa
ii libc6 2.2.5-14.2 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
-- no debconf information
Received: (at 234286-done) by bugs.debian.org; 23 Aug 2004 21:08:01 +0000
>From email@example.com Mon Aug 23 14:08:01 2004
Received: from host-12-107-230-171.dtccom.net (glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com) [220.127.116.11]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BzM2q-0004Eb-00; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:08:01 -0700
Received: from glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com (srivasta@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Debian-8) with ESMTP id i7NL5l9e022510
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:05:47 -0500
Received: (from srivasta@localhost)
by glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Debian-8) id i7NL5l3F022509;
Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:05:47 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com: srivasta set sender to email@example.com using -f
Subject: Re: Bug#234286: debian-policy: log file should be in packages' file list
From: Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Organization: The Debian Project
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:05:47 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20040223001628.GB4109@riva.ucam.org> (Colin Watson's message of
"Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:16:28 +0000")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:16:28 +0000, Colin Watson <email@example.com> said:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 07:31:15AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
>> Package: debian-policy Version: 18.104.22.168 Severity: wishlist
>> Idea: programs that will make log files should be required to list
>> the basic log file (before rotations, etc.) so that dpkg -L package
>> will list them, and dpkg -S will find them.
> There is no mechanism in dpkg for packages to do this yet, so
> there's no point in you filing this request against policy. Sorry. I
> recommend that this bug be closed. (I believe that the request is
> already in dpkg's huge bug list somewhere, so no need to add to it
> with a reassign; it's certainly a reasonably well-known wishlist
> among the developers.)
> If a package attempted to fulfil your request using only the current
> mechanisms, then the log file would be erased on every upgrade. This
> is why an extension to dpkg is needed.
Closing the report.
Though I'll admit readability suffers slightly... --Larry Wall in
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C