Re: Deleting uncompressed Info/Doc files at upgrades
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Peter> I think I would have wasted my time coding this, as some have
> Peter> strongly objected to what they perceive as dpkg playing
> Peter> behind their back.
>
> I agree with you there. dpkg, or any other program, should not
> second guess the human this way.
You know very well _I_ don't agree with this. :-)
I only said that _some_ have strongly objected... namely you!
Of course I think it's a good idea!
> Peter> But perhaps coding an '--handle-uncompressed-docs' that is
> Peter> disabled by default would be good.
>
> dpkg does not know that a file is a document, or have any idea
> of the information content of files in general, apart from maintainer
> scripts. I do not think it would be feasible to educate dpkg to
> understand what the implications of the contents of files are, and to
> change behaviour accordingly, since there are far too many formats
> out there.
On Oct 16th, I suggested:
Sure, dealing with uncompressed files on upgrade is 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)?
This deals with your concern.
--
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: