Re: Deleting uncompressed Info/Doc files at upgrades
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <email@example.com> writes:
Chris> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I agree with you there. dpkg, or any other program, should not
>> second guess the human this way.
Chris> Excuse me? Couldn't dpkg's *entire* job be described as second guessing
Chris> the human?
Hell, no. dpkg does exactly what I tell it to do -- you must
have a strange relationship with your package manager. I tell dpkg
what packages to hold, to upgrade, etc. I know which files are likely
to be affected (they are in /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list
Chris> The tricky part is and always has been getting it right:
Chris> obvious things like, "you don't want to install that without the
Chris> libraries it requires," are easy, but it's still second
I think you don not know the meaning of the phrase second
guession, or you should really take charge of your machine.
Chris> In the case of compressed vs. uncompressed files, dpkg is already
Chris> capable of this. Just move the files in question to a separate package,
Chris> provide two versions of the package, with and without compression, and
So you want to double the number of packages there are, and
set up packages which are duplicates except for the doc files? What a
waste of archive space. I object.
The object of this discussion was to make sure that the
uncompressed doc files are updated on an upgrade, and I can do that
with a <20 lines shell script.
This does not belong in the package management system A
simple, 18 line script does that for the doc and info dirsm and can
be run out of cron.
It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three
benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never
to use either. Mark Twain
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E