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

Re: Checking for changed conffiles

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Anselm Lingnau wrote:

> Do we have a clever way of checking which conffiles have changed from
> their default state? I can get a list of the conffiles on the system
> easily enough but I don't see an obvious way of checking whether they're
> different from when the package was first unpacked, since they don't
> show up in the MD5 sum listings. (I'd rather not look into the original
> packages for comparisons against the virgin conffiles if that is
> avoidable.)

Something like this?

% dpkg --status exim 
Package: exim
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: mail
Installed-Size: 861
Maintainer: Mark Baker <mbaker@iee.org>
Version: 1.92-3
Replaces: mail-transport-agent
Provides: mail-transport-agent
Depends: libc6, libpcre1, cron (>= 3.0pl1-42)
Suggests: mail-reader, eximon
Conflicts: mail-transport-agent
 /etc/init.d/exim f5f1fcddf5b4e8366b279b8b7e34b345
 /etc/cron.daily/exim c5d0d99966397e42184658bc5e2c2c3f
 /etc/cron.d/exim e8739a5bc032fa87d9ffeb8252de5dbc
 /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim b3875ed036bd9e2a22bb6e1c6f0b4acc
Description: Exim Mailer
 This MTA is rather easier to configure than smail or sendmail.
 It is a drop-in replacement for sendmail/mailq/rsmtp.
 Advanced features include the ability to reject connections from
 known spam sites, and an extremely efficient queue processing

The pristine md5sums are there, in the conffiles section.  If dpkg
--status si too slow for you, you can just get the md5sums direct from
/var/lib/dpkg/status, although this will guarantee that your program
breaks when we change the dpkg database format :-)


|  Jelibean aka  | jules@jellybean.co.uk         |  6 Evelyn Rd	       |
|  Jules aka     | jules@debian.org              |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk        |  TW9 2TF *UK*       |
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left.             |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.          |

Reply to: