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

How to handle conffiles when renaming or splitting a package?



Hello everybody,

and happy new year !

I have recently split the mime-support package in two: media-types and
mailcap.  But I wonder if I handled the conffiles correctly.

mime-support had the conffiles `/etc/mime.types` and
`/etc/mailcap.order` until version 3.64.  Version 3.65 is a transitional
package containing only a changelog and a copyright file, and depends on
media-types and mailcap.  And these two packages declare a Breaks and
Replaces relationship against mime-support << 3.65.

As a result of the upgrade, the conffiles are now owned by the new
packages.  But dpkg still keeps a record that the mime-support has
the "obsolete" version of them:

# dpkg-query -W -f='${Conffiles}\n' media-types
 /etc/mime.types 43fa90aa9a5e009997f451be169ac530

# md5sum /etc/mime.types
43fa90aa9a5e009997f451be169ac530  /etc/mime.types

# dpkg-query -W -f='${Conffiles}\n'  mailcap
 /etc/mailcap.order ba07e08a7fe3741d0b8339127963190e

# dpkg-query -W -f='${Conffiles}\n'  mime-support
 /etc/mime.types 0d516753aee0a2c670c79667aad0c836 obsolete
 /etc/mailcap.order ba07e08a7fe3741d0b8339127963190e obsolete

I have received reports from users who consider this a problem.  Indeed,
in the case of mailcap it is potentially confusing as the conffile's MD5
sum has not changed.

On the other hand, once mime-support is purged, which is how
transitionnal packages eventually should be handled, the situation is
clean.  So I am not sure if there is a problem here.

Is it needed to clean dpkg's database so that it does not report
obsolete conffiles for mime-support?  (Actually, I would have expected
dpkg to do this automagically given the Breaks and Replaces
relationship.)

Have a nice day,

Charles

-- 
Charles Plessy                         Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan
Tooting from work,           https://mastodon.technology/@charles_plessy
Tooting from home,                 https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy


Reply to: