[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: