Re: Deleting uncompressed Info/Doc files at upgrades
On Tue, Oct 20, 1998 at 01:00:55PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Stephen" == Stephen J Carpenter <email@example.com> writes:
> Stephen> If I edit poff (which I have) then I update ppp to the latest version,
> Stephen> should I expect my poff to not be replaced with the new version in
> Stephen> the package?
> Stephen> why should this NOT be so for entire directory trees?
> You are talking about conffiles, where dpkg takes extra care
> not to clobber stuff. You want to do that for every file? How
> much extra time do you have on your hands? I though we were
> talking about slow machines here?
no...my point is that if it is not a conffile and I make changes
then I do so at the risk of loosing them (which I did with poff
I changed it once then filed a wishlist bug because I think a version
of my change could be usefull to others as part of the main package--
but I know that on an upgrade I WILL loose that change.
I am sory if I came off as saying something else
> What is wrong with a 18 line shell script that does this for
> the doc and info trees and can be run out of cron? Why should
> eveyrhing go into dpkg, so that the behaviour changes for everyone,
Thats a good point...hmmm...
A cron job to delete uncompressed versions and do cleanup could be
installed (or otherwise activated) by anyone who wants it...
I supose one could argue that if we keep adding features to dpkg then
eventually we will just end up with emacs ;)
I was more disagreeing with the idea that dpkg should be carefull about
stepping on files in /usr/doc and other places. IMHO if its not in /usr/local
or other directory structures specifically documented as a place where
things don't get stepped on...then they are fair game
/* -- Stephen Carpenter <firstname.lastname@example.org> --- <email@example.com>------------ */
E-mail "Bumper Stickers":
"A FREE America or a Drug-Free America: You can't have both!"
"honk if you Love Linux"