Re: Should ucf be of priority required?
Magnus Holmgren <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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?
Shouldn't the question rather be:
When will ucf be merged into dpkg?
I find is stupid that ucf handled configuration files will not be
tracked by dpkg and that dpkg and ucf both implement a
"keep/replace/merge/diff/whatever" interface for updates.