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

Re: Bug#800769: pbuilder: conffiles not removed



Hi fellows debian-devel@ lurkers!

On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 09:03:46PM +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 02:33:09PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
> > The recent upgrade did not deal with obsolete conffiles properly.
> > Please use the dpkg-maintscript-helper support provided by dh_installdeb
> > to remove these obsolete conffiles on upgrade.
> > 
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s-config-files
> > http://manpages.debian.org/man/1/dh_installdeb
> > 
> > $ pkg=pbuilder ; adequate $pkg ; dpkg-query -W -f='${Conffiles}\n' $pkg | grep obsolete
> > pbuilder: obsolete-conffile /etc/pbuilder/pbuilder-uml.conf
> >  /etc/pbuilder/pbuilder-uml.conf ce1832f09d721efe29b92ec153fa4410 obsolete
> 
> oh, gosh
> All this just for fucking up with the arch:all buildd :\
> 
> This happened because the 0.217 was the first version being built by the
> arch:all autobuilder, but the code that moved that file away was run
> only for arch-indep builds, so it did not run there; the 0.218 was
> uploaded exactly to fix that issue, but 0.217 was already in the wild
> with that bogus file.
> 
> That file is supposed to be only on pbuilder-uml binary, so I can't just
> use rm_conffiles to remove it in pbuilder, as that would blindly remove
> it while pbuilder-uml might be using it.
> 
> How do you suggest to handle this?

Do you happen to have ides?
What actually needs to happen is to hand a conffile over to another
package, but neither me or pabs have a clue on how to do that.

Suggestion welcome!

-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
more about me:  http://mapreri.org                              : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: