Re: Recent changes in dpkg
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010, Jonathan Niehof wrote:
> This is a great addition; however, if the user has changed the
> conffile *and* the maintainer also changes it in the same version
> where it is moved, the user's file is left silently in place and the
> maintainer's installed as .dpkg-new. This seems surprising to me, as
> it means the behavior is different when the conffile moves than when
> it doesn't (if it hadn't moved, a question would be triggered). I had
> this issue with the recipes in
> http://wiki.debian.org/DpkgConffileHandling to start with, so it's not
> a knock on dpkg-maintscript-helper itself.
>
> I have an approach that does a three-way compare between old
> maintainer, new maintainer, and user versions and tries to be smart
> about it. If this behaviour is desirable I'll see if I can't make a
> patch for dpkg-maintscript-helper. (The cost is a hacky sed line in
> rules which rewrites prerm with the md5 of the new maintainer
> version.)
I think this ought to be fixed, yes. The sed call is not really needed,
you can hardcode the md5sum in the parameters, it's not going to change
over time. It would be even better if this could be extracted at run time
(technically it can, you can extract it in the prerm from
/var/lib/dpkg/info/tmp.ci/conffiles, it's just a question whether we want
to support such an interface as this is mucking with dpkg's internals.
But it's less of a problem now since dpkg-maintscript-helper is tied to
dpkg anyway).
In any case, please file a bug report (with a patch if you can).
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/
My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/
Reply to: