Transitional packages: unmark auto, dealing with conffiles
Hello,
I am writing a transitional package to handle a software name change.
There are two problems I'm trying to handle:
- How to avoid marking the new package (which the transitional package
depends upon) as being autoinstalled.
- How to deal with old conffiles not adopted by the new package.
I have posed these two questions before, one on Debian User
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2011/12/msg00739.html), one on
Debian Devel
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/12/msg00337.html). In both
cases, I have received helpful advice and the suggestion to pose these
questions on Debian Mentors. So I'll recap what I have learned so far
and hope you can fill in the mising pieces.
Regarding the unmark auto flag, I know now that newer versions of apt
will not mark packages as auto if they are autoinstalled due to a
package in section 'oldlibs' or 'metapackages'. So, if the transitional
package belongs to one of those two and gets installed by 'apt-get
dist-upgrade' in Squeeze, everything is fine. But what if another tool
is used, e.g. aptitude. And how can I support people still running
Lenny? I have tested clearing the flag in '/var/lib/apt/extended_state'
from the postinst script of the transitional package. But aptitude will
override this by setting the flag later during the upgrade. And its a
hack, anyway.
Regarding the configuration files, I know now that newer versions of
dpkg include 'dpkg-maintscript-helper' with commands to move or remove
conffiles. This works nicely in Squeeze. But again, how can I support
systems with Lenny? In order to make the transitional package forget
about a conffile, I tested removing it in the package's postinst script
and also remove the corresponding entry from
/var/lib/dpkg/info/<package>.list. That seems to work, but I would
consider it a hack as well.
I have found the interesting thread 'Transitional (dummy) packages
considered silly' on Debian Devel
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/09/msg00687.html). Will any
of the suggestions made there make it into Debian? E.g., how about a new
control field 'Superseeds'?
There are probably more questions regarding transitional packages than
the two I have come across so far. It seems to me there could be better
support for transitional packages in Debian in terms of policy, tool
support and documentation. What are your thoughts? Of course, I'd be
happy to help in bringing these issues along.
Thanks, Malte
Reply to: