On Tuesday 15 February 2011 16:44:49 Matt Zagrabelny wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Joey Hess <email@example.com> wrote: > > Matt Zagrabelny wrote: > >> I understand the difference between remove and purge and the reason to > >> use both, but removing unmodified conf files seems like a win to me. > >> Keeps the clutter down. > > > > You'll stop thinking this when apt decides to do an upgrade as follows: > > > > 1. remove foo (and its conffiles) > > 2. install bar > > 3. install foo > > > > That is one of the reasons for the current behavior, and temporarily > > removing a package is how apt deals with certian dependency issues. > > Renaming a package is another similar reason for the current behavior. > > 1. would remove the unmodified conf file > 3. would install it > > Did I miss something? It might be different and incompatible with the conffile(s) (if any) you did save. For example, it might no longer #include (or similar) the conffile that was saved. I would support a --purge-unchanged option, it seems like it could be useful in certain circumstances. However, something like that couldn't be the default for the same reason --purge can't be the default. I'm not sure how such a state would be representing in dpkg. uninstalled, half-configured? -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. firstname.lastname@example.org ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.