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

Re: Should ucf be of priority required?

On Sun, Jan 03 2010, Magnus Holmgren wrote:

> On måndagen den 7 december 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 01:17:30PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
>> > But how do you fix a package to do what its supposed to do,
>> > when it isn't installed anymore?
>> You don't need to. When the package is purged, and ucf doesn't exist
>> anymore, what you do is rm -f the relevant files.
>> Unregistering those files in ucf is necessary so that ucf throws away
>> the correct checksums from its database, too. However, if ucf itself is
>> no longer on the system, then the same is true for that database, and
>> unregistering stuff from that database is no longer necessary.
> Unless ucf is removed but not purged, right?

        Not really. If ucf is removed, then it's database can no longer
 be trusted to be accurate anyway. So the fact that the removal of the
 package is not registered in ucf's database makes no difference really
 (an untrusted DB expected to be out of date is now known to meet

"Even more amazing was the realization that God has Internet access.  I
wonder if He has a full newsfeed?" (By Matt Welsh)
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: