Bug#4074: marked as done (problems with 1.1 release)
Your message dated Sun, 10 Oct 1999 02:14:10 -0400
with message-id <19991010021410.E18835@lappy.djj.state.va.us>
and subject line some dpkg bug maintainence with permission from wichert
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Aug 1996 20:07:28 +0000
Received: (qmail-queue invoked from smtpd); 8 Aug 1996 19:47:07 -0000
Received: from cartridge.i-connect.net (qmailr@206.139.73.12)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 8 Aug 1996 19:47:07 -0000
Received: (qmail-queue invoked from smtpd); 8 Aug 1996 14:17:24 -0000
Received: from artemis.chu.cam.ac.uk (root@131.111.131.1)
by cartridge.i-connect.net with SMTP; 8 Aug 1996 14:17:22 -0000
Received: from chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.131.114]) by artemis.chu.cam.ac.uk
with smtp (ident root using rfc1413) id m0uoViA-0002eGC
(Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.37); Thu, 8 Aug 96 15:05 BST
Received: by chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk
id m0uoVgy-0004OEC
(Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.35); Thu, 8 Aug 96 15:04 BST
Message-Id: <m0uoVgy-0004OEC@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 96 15:04 BST
From: Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>
To: Debian bugs submission address <submit@bugs.debian.org>
X-Debian-CC: Scott Barker <scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca>
Subject: Re: problems with 1.1 release
In-Reply-To: <199608010111.TAA01165@galileo.cuug.ab.ca>
References: <m0ulkaP-0004PxC@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>
<199608010111.TAA01165@galileo.cuug.ab.ca>
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.3.1
Scott Barker writes ("Re: problems with 1.1 release"):
...
> ok. Although, I beg to differ about the *.conffiles:
>
> ls /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.conffiles
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/adduser.conffiles
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/at.conffiles
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/base.conffiles
> [etc]
Oops, this is a bug. I'll fix it some time (it's just some wasted
space - there are no real problems with it).
Ian.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 4074-done) by bugs.debian.org; 10 Oct 1999 06:12:48 +0000
Received: (qmail 18194 invoked from network); 10 Oct 1999 06:12:46 -0000
Received: from ppp28.ts1-3.newportnews.visi.net (HELO lappy.djj.state.va.us) (209.8.197.92)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 10 Oct 1999 06:12:46 -0000
Received: from bmc by lappy.djj.state.va.us with local (Exim 3.03 #1 (Debian))
id 11aCFG-00038m-00; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 02:14:10 -0400
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 02:14:10 -0400
From: Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
To: 1685-done@bugs.debian.org, 16217-done@bugs.debian.org,
10263-done@bugs.debian.org, 4074-done@bugs.debian.org,
1037-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: some dpkg bug maintainence with permission from wichert
Message-ID: <19991010021410.E18835@lappy.djj.state.va.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0pre2i
1685: dpkg-split command line parsing.
My take on this, the options expected aren't in a compatible format,
so it can't be made GNU style. Also the man page shows that the
complained about format is expected. IMO, if it's documented as such,
then it should be acceptible. GNU is not the endall argument format.
16217: prompting for clearing avail on updates in dselect
dselect doesn't seem to do this anymore
10263: segfaults on upgrade
Very old bug concerning libc5->libc6 upgrades. I don't think we have any
way to really reproduce it, plus the reports show that the cause was
possibly found from some dependencies, but the original poster never
responded back.
4074: conffile's left behind
Not a current problem with dpkg it seems
1037: dselect help screen
Ian said he would fix this in the report when he released the C version of
dpkg, that seems to have occured (bug report is vague on what the actual bug
is, and attempts at clarifying have failed).
Ben....more to come
Reply to: