Re: mucking with dpkg control files in maintainer scripts?
* sean finney
| is this even remotely acceptable? i had the impressions that packages
| must not assume the inner workings of dpkg. but, i can't back this up
| with anything in policy from what i can tell, hence the posting of
| this question.
Before responding, please read the bug report (390823) mentioned in
the changelog. Oh, and if we deem this unacceptable, please do
suggest a different way and file bugs on a lot of the archive,
including all doing stuff like:
[...]
old_md5sum="`sed -n -e \"/^Conffiles:/,/^[^ ]/{\\\\' $CONFFILE'{s/.* //;p}}\" /var/lib/dpkg/status`"
[...]
in their postinst. Other notable offenders are base-files, man-db,
dpkg, most of the X packages. Not-so-well-known offenders include
watchdog and mordor.
In summary: It's the least harmful way to fix the problem, and other
maintainers have come to the same conclusion before. If anybody has
less bad suggestions, please do chime in.
--
Tollef Fog Heen ,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :
`. `'
`-
Reply to: