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

SpamAssassin /etc cleanup (was: Re: Why back-porting patches to stable instead of releasing a new package.)



On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:47:33PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > 
> > The package (1) does not deal with the logcheck mess that I am trying to solve.
> 
> This problem [1] was reported a week ago isn't even fixed in unstable.
> 
> Get it fixed in unstable and the fix will go into the backport.

The problem is related with a backport, since installing it under woody will
solve the same problem as when sarge becomes stable.

I would like to describe the problem and obtain a feasible answer to get done
with it:

spamassassin in woody included a file and 2 links under /etc/logcheck:

/etc/logcheck/ignore.d.server/spamassassin and two links from
ignore.d.paranoid and ignore.d.workstation pointing to the same file.

When purging tha package before an upgrade, the files are cleaned.

Instead, if we upgrade on top, one of the links is erased, another link
remains and two files are in the system: 1 new installed (in a directory with
a link: /etc/logcheck/ignore.d.paranoid/spamassassin.dpkg-new) and the old
file from the 2.20-1woody release.

jfs proposed during debconf to provide the only config file under logcheck
inside examples and substitute during postinst if the original file was not
modified (checking md5's).

However I would consider using preinst and moving the files to another
location (if they have not been modified by the user) and unpacking the
package with a clean directory (logcheck wise).

If the unpacking fails, a rollback is possible using the dev-scripts and the
right flags and code.

What would be the right way to attack this problem?

data

-- 
Jesus Climent | Unix SysAdm | Helsinki, Finland | pumuki.hispalinux.es
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429  7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Registered Linux user #66350 proudly using Debian Sid & Linux 2.4.21

That's thirty minutes away. I'll be there in ten.
		--Wolf (Pulp Fiction)



Reply to: