Bug#233886: tetex-base upgrade from woody pretend I have modified /etc/texmf/mktex.cnf
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:46:06PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr> schrieb:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 10:15:57AM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > I am worried that you seemed not to aware of the extend of the problem
> > before I report it. Conffiles is something we should not treat lightly.
> >
> > If every packages in Debian were to trigger the dpkg conffile handler
> > whereas the user made no change, upgrading to sarge is likely to require
> > to answer 200 queries. tetex trigger 12 useless queries by itself.
>
> I just created a pbuilder chroot with woody, logged in and installed
> tetex-bin and its dependencies. Then I edited sources.list to point to
> unstable (I ignored the non-us part) and did a dist-upgrade. There were
> five questions for tetex, one was about /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf, the other
> four about files in /etc/texmf/texmf.d. So these 12 must have a
> different reason, I guess.
My original report carried the list of files:
tetex-base: /etc/texmf/mktex.cnf
tetex-bin: /etc/texmf/texmf.d/95NonPath.cnf
tetex-bin: /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf
tetex-bin: /etc/texmf/texmf.d/45TeXinputs.cnf
tetex-bin: /etc/texmf/texmf.d/75DviPS.cnf
tetex-bin: /etc/texmf/texmf.d/85Misc.cnf
tetex-extra: /etc/texmf/dvips/config.ams
tetex-extra: /etc/texmf/dvips/config.cm
tetex-extra: /etc/texmf/dvips/config.amz
tetex-extra: /etc/texmf/dvips/config.cmz
tetex-extra: /etc/texmf/dvips/bsr-interpolated.map
tetex-extra: /etc/texmf/dvips/bsr.map
So some of them are in fact part of tetex-extra.
> Still I think that 5 is 5 too much. Nobody of us has experience with ucf
> (or possible alternatives), I fear. Are you sure that it will help to
> resolve the situation - now that the mess is yet there, and the old
> files are not under ucf control?
By not using dpkg, you will have much more control on the process. For
example you can compare the md5sum of the files with those of the woody
version. If they match, the the file was not modified, and so you skip
the question.
The new config files will no more be conffiles, which may lead to
unclean sid to sid upgrade, but I beleive it is much more important
to have a clean woody to sarge update.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: