Re: Deleting uncompressed Info/Doc files at upgrades
> > Uncompressing docs or info is *not* unusual, nor should it be frowned
> > upon. We should accommodate the possibility of that happening. The same
> > way that a properly-configured Emacs will read-in a compressed file
> > correctly, dpkg should treat an uncompressed file as the same and upgrade
> > it.
Craig Sanders wrote:
> this seems to be a case of "don't do that then".
>
> no tool will ever be smart enough to cope perfectly with users leaving
> crud all over the disk. in particular, it is unclear what The Right
> Thing to do is.
Well, I disagree about one thing. :-)
To me, a uncompressed version of a file is still the same file.
To me, copying an uncompressed info file to /usr/local/info *is* leaving
crud all over the disk.
Sure, it's a special case. Sure dpkg should have to be changed, or maybe
/var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list file could have regular expressions, like:
/usr/info/emacs-e20-2(.gz)?
But that's only my view... No big deal.
--
Peter Galbraith, research scientist <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546
6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/
Reply to: