Bug#223463: marked as done (Should "dpkg -r" delete unmodified conffiles?)
Your message dated Tue, 9 Dec 2003 21:58:10 +0000
with message-id <20031209215810.GD3053@doc.ic.ac.uk>
and subject line Bug#223463: Should "dpkg -r" delete unmodified conffiles?
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.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Dec 2003 16:56:06 +0000
>From gpk@gpk.wftp.org Tue Dec 09 10:56:04 2003
Return-path: <gpk@gpk.wftp.org>
Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1ATjbj-00035z-00; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:17:03 -0600
Received: from localhost ([62.254.144.58]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.37 201-229-121-137-20020806) with ESMTP
id <20031209122401.LRJM14657.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@localhost>
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:24:01 +0000
Received: from gpk by localhost with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1ATgtk-0002C9-00; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:23:28 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Greg Kochanski <gpk@kochanski.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Should "dpkg -r" delete unmodified conffiles?
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.36
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:23:28 +0000
Message-Id: <[🔎] E1ATgtk-0002C9-00@localhost>
Sender: Greg Kochanski <gpk@gpk.wftp.org>
X-Spam-Prob: -2039.62589
X-Spam-Rating: 3
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin
2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2003_11_20
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on master.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.5 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE,
REMOVE_REMOVAL_2WORD autolearn=no
version=2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2003_11_20
X-Spam-Level:
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.10.18
Severity: minor
Installing and removing packages leaves one with
dozens or even hundreds of junk files in /etc
and other places. This is undesireable.
As I understand this, from the dpkg man page,
the intent behind this behavior is to allow you to
preserve system-specific configuration information.
That way, when you re-install a package that you
hand-configured once, it doesn't have to be hand-confured
again.
Now, one can get rid of them with a "dpkg -P",
but that (as I understand it) gets rid of *all* files.
Thus, any hand-configuration information is lost.
Neither option is quite right. "-r" leaves useless
junk around, and "-P" can delete important information.
What dpkg needs to do, it seems, is to delete
all config files that haven't changed,
and the leave the conffiles that have been modified.
This would seem to be the best of both worlds,
leading to a less-cluttered system, but still preserving
any modifications.
I'd suggest that this be made the default -remove behavior,
but perhaps it might be best to add a new flag.
If my reading of the man pages is incorrect, then
this should probably become a bug report on the man page.
"-P or --purge removes everything" is pretty clear,
as is "-r or --remove remove everything except configuration files".
As a third possibility, it may be that many packages
are listing junk files as configuration files.
For instance, many packages leave files in /etc/rc*.d
after removal. Normally, those are just symlinks to
/etc/init.d/something. Why should they be preserved,
even if /etc/init.d/something is worth preserving?
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux gpk 2.4.23 #2 Sun Dec 7 11:46:58 GMT 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages dpkg depends on:
ii dselect 1.10.18 a user tool to manage Debian packa
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 223463-done) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Dec 2003 22:12:27 +0000
>From asuffield@suffields.me.uk Tue Dec 09 16:12:18 2003
Return-path: <asuffield@suffields.me.uk>
Received: from public1-sout4-4-cust241.cosh.broadband.ntl.com (cyclone) [81.103.170.241]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1ATpry-0004yd-00; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:58:24 -0600
Received: from asuffield by cyclone with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 1ATpru-0000qx-00
for <223463-done@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:58:10 +0000
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 21:58:10 +0000
From: Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org>
To: 223463-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#223463: Should "dpkg -r" delete unmodified conffiles?
Message-ID: <20031209215810.GD3053@doc.ic.ac.uk>
References: <[🔎] E1ATgtk-0002C9-00@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Ycz6tD7Th1CMF4v7"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] E1ATgtk-0002C9-00@localhost>
X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Sender: Andrew Suffield <asuffield@suffields.me.uk>
Delivered-To: 223463-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin
2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2003_11_20
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on master.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=FOOASDF,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no
version=2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2003_11_20
X-Spam-Level:
--Ycz6tD7Th1CMF4v7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 12:23:28PM +0000, Greg Kochanski wrote:
> What dpkg needs to do, it seems, is to delete
> all config files that haven't changed,
> and the leave the conffiles that have been modified.
> This would seem to be the best of both worlds,
> leading to a less-cluttered system, but still preserving
> any modifications.
That would make reinstalling the package afterwards break. If the
package is in state config-files (uninstalled, not purged) then any
config files must be present. Deleting a config file is a legitimate
modification by the sysadmin which dpkg preserves. Reinstalling the
package would not replace any config files that were removed under
your proposal, nor should it; dpkg has no way to distinguish between
conffiles removed by itself or by the sysadmin.
--=20
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
--Ycz6tD7Th1CMF4v7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD4DBQE/1kVylpK98RSteX8RAsw7AJdZv0oFgNTTfP10muloiiwStkY7AJsEC2Q2
eqn9dDGCv1v3LFdM4uuruA==
=nJkV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Ycz6tD7Th1CMF4v7--
Reply to: