Re: Upcoming Debian Releases
tom@lpsg.demon.co.uk (Tom Lees) wrote on 02.06.97 in <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.95.970602163934.207B-100000@debian.dd.com>:
> On 30 May 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> > tom@lpsg.demon.co.uk (Tom Lees) wrote on 27.05.97 in
> > <Pine.LNX.3.95.970527090138.1013C-100000@debian.dd.com>:
> >
> > > There are ways to avoid this. For example, modify dpkg not to include
> > > any line with "config=yes" in it in the md5sum of certain files.
> >
> > This is a troll, right?
>
> Wrong.
Well, it should be.
> > Or maybe you have forgotten how conffiles are actually handled:
> >
> > (old=original install, new=this install, current=possibly edited version)
> >
> > If old md5 = new md5, ignore new file (package unchanged)
> > If old md5 = current md5, install new file (conffile was not edited)
>
> > otherwise, prompt (both changed)
> >
> > Your change would mean that in case 2, dpkg would have to figure out how
> > to put the variables from the old script into the new one.
>
> But, for a package which adds config info, the new md5 != the old md5.
> Therefore, it would ask!
No.
While the new md5 != the old, we still have the old = the current, and so
dpkg will NOT ask, but silently upgrade.
At least that's how it currently works, and also how it ought to work.
I certainly don't want to be asked to upgrade a conffile that I never even
looked at.
> non-cfgtool md5 != cfgtoolized md5: old md5 != new md5.
> local file not modified: update anyway to use new cfgtool version.
> local file modified:
>
> cfgtool md5 == cfgtool md5: old md5=new md5
> local file "not modified" (enough) - install new
> THEN, update from cfg database.
>
> See, it does work.
No, it doesn't. You forget that there are three md5 sums / file versions
involved, not two - *even though you quote me explaining it*!
MfG Kai
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: