Bug#23712: conflicting packages with the same conffile
- To: Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: Russ Allbery <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Bug#23712: conflicting packages with the same conffile
- From: Jonathan Nieder <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 21:18:28 -0600
- Message-id: <20110305031828.GA22914@elie>
- Reply-to: Jonathan Nieder <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <20100821144710.GF22862@rivendell>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <E0zDnSV-0007YP-00@night> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20100819084352.GB8057@rivendell> <email@example.com> <20100821063501.GB22862@rivendell> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20100821144710.GF22862@rivendell>
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Hm. All the words that I had intended to be there are there. I clearly
>> need to rephrase it somehow, though, if it's not clear. How about:
>> When two packages both declare the same <tt>conffile</tt>, they may
>> see left-over configuration files from each other even though they
>> conflict with each other.
> I was confused by the comma. I supposed it was meant to split the whole
> But the second wording is better IMO.
Assuming that can be taken as a second, we have:
Cyril Brulebois <email@example.com> (message #75)
Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org> (message #70)
so I think this should be ready to go. Thanks for your work.