[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#601957: pending NMU

Hi again,

On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:31:29AM +0800, Desmond O. Chang wrote [edited]:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 03:51, Serafeim Zanikolas <sez at debian.org> wrote:
> > Hi Desmond,
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 11:14:07AM +0100, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote [edited]:
> >> I think the ideal instead would be to keep lisp-confifg.lisp as a conffile,
> >> but remove it in preinst when upgrading from versions prior to 7.0. Here's an
> I have a question about the patch.  If I remove (not purge) c-l-c
> first, I will also encounter the conflict when I install the new
> version.

Is that a hypothesis or have you verified it? Between which versions?

My understanding is that that's  correct, but only for uninstall/install of
releases from testing->sid (and sid->latest). It's not the case for
lenny->squeeze because lisp-config.lisp is not a conffile in lenny, and thus
will be removed even with a plain (non-purge) pkg removal.

> I think we also need remove lisp-config.lisp when executing
> 'new-preinst install old-version' (according to debian-policy).  Is it
> right?

The conflict might only occur when the stale lisp-config.lisp is a conffile,
and by definition we're not allowed to wipe conffiles. I believe that there's
user prompting only upon a conflict between local changes and the new conffile
(ie. no prompting when an unmodified old conffile is replaced by an updated

> > I've tested the patch. Do you want to make the upload, or shall I NMU
> > (non-DELAYED, if you agree)?
> I hope your patch can be merged into master, but since I don't have
> uploading permission, I also need you sponsor c-l-c and cl-asdf
> (dependency of c-l-c).  So my opinion is that you build & upload our
> master code of c-l-c.

So you prefer the release and I do the sponsorship? Why would you update
cl-asdf? (it's has no rc bugs)


Reply to: