Re: RFC: some new deb package flag: "upgrade-conflicts"
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:54:17AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > -- if you
> > > think leaving this stuff around doesn't make maintenance more difficult,
> > > I have some scripts to show you... :)
> > Would you mind?
> Ok.
Thanks.
> So, the file looks a bit cluttered. If you can suggest a way to make a
> shell script do a lot of stuff without looking cluttered (which I believe
> is an inherent property of shell scripts), I'm all ears. :)
One possibility, since it's your postinst, is to move it to an entirely
separate file, and just have something like:
if dpkg --compare-versions "$2" lt "2.2.3a-6"; then
# upgrading from pre-woody version, so files may be in all
# sorts of weird places. there's lots of crufty junk here
/usr/lib/samba/upgrade-from-obsolete-version
fi
> Otherwise, I
> view supporting potato->sarge upgrades as more cumbersome than not
> supporting them. Maybe not prohibitively so -- if Policy says we have to
> do it, it can be done -- but given the choice, I think there are more
> productive things that I can spend my development time on, especially
> when it's so easy to introduce a bug in the script that can render this
> little-tested upgrade path completely useless.
Yeah, well, we already have enough problems getting regular upgrades
well tested, so that's unlikely at the moment. Oh well. It just seems
a shame to cull working code for something users actually want.
> # Generate configuration file if it does not exist, using default values.
> [ -r "${INITCONFFILE}" ] || {
> echo Generating ${INITCONFFILE}... >&2
> cat >${INITCONFFILE} <<'EOFMAGICNUMBER1234'
(Oh dear)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Reply to: