Bug#768815: apache2.2-common: debsums reports missing conffiles after wheezy -> jessie upgrade
On Wednesday 19 November 2014 16:49:44, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> On 2014-11-18 14:23, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > I think it would be best to ask the dpkg maintainers if they can
> > make dpkg recognize that the obsolete conffiles have been
> > removed. If that
> that is a hard part
>
> but I got some weird idea about generalized file ownership:
>
> (the classic ones)
> * you own a file exclusively that you ship (there are special cases
> for m-a same packages)
> * you own a directory shared that you ship
>
> (the weird ones)
> * you own an object exclusively with the property
> ***SHOULD_NOT_EXIST*** i.e. you have a file conflict with any other
> package that wants to own that object, too. so you take-over
> ownership of obsolete conffiles.
> * you own an object exclusively,
> but don't ship it. instead it is generated by maintainer scripts or
> whatever. this is marked with the property either delete-on-remove
> or delete-on-purge - so dpkg could handle proper cleanup on
> removal/purge, too, without the need for maintainer scripts
> performing cleanup. might be handy for
> configuration files, state files, cache files, logfiles, ...
>
> if that does not sound totally insane we should propose this to
> guillem for dpkg 1.20+x
I does sound way too complicated to implement for jessie. I was more
thinking of one of these:
- whenever dpkg does the check for removal of obsolete conffiles (I
think it does that just after the postinst of a package runs), do the
check for all packages that the current package replaces, too.
- simply provide a command line option that we may call in our
postinst. This would also allow administrators to make dpkg forget
about conffiles they have deleted by hand.
> > is not feasible for Jessie, debsums or piuparts should work around
> > this problem so that piuparts tests are still possible. Do you
> > agree?
> maybe you have convinced me to fix debsums instead ...
>
> PS: do you need the apache2.2-common transitional package? would
> upgrades work if that would not exist?
Reply to: