Re: Deleting uncompressed Info/Doc files at upgrades
>>"Peter" == Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> writes:
Peter> - It would not be reading your mind. That's ridiculous.
It would be exceeding its authority.
Peter> - It would be doing you a favour.
Oh no. If I wanted that file upgraded, I would have left it in
Peter> - It would be doing the right thing. Why would you possibly
Peter> _not_ want to upgrade it?
Because if I wanted it upgraded, I would have left dpkg have
control. By renaming it (which s waht has been done) I move it
out of dpkg's hands and into manual control. I surely have
reasons to do this. You don't know what the reasons are, and
yet you clainm the code knows better and should remove the file?
In fasct, unless it can read my mind and figure out that I do
want the file removed, you dpkg should keep its grubby little fingers
off that file which it kenneth not aboot.
Anyway, I think this has been thrashed out enough. If the dpkg
authors ever want to change the behaviour, and are sure that the
stability of the system shall not be degraded, I shall not voice an
objection, no matter how strong my inclination to demurr.
Q: How many mathematicians does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A:
One. He gives it to six Californians, thereby reducing the problem
to the earlier joke.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E