Bug#23712: conflicting packages with the same conffile
- To: 23712@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#23712: conflicting packages with the same conffile
- From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:17:36 -0800
- Message-id: <[🔎] 877h1j6vun.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
- Reply-to: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>, 23712@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <20110305031828.GA22914@elie> (Jonathan Nieder's message of "Fri, 4 Mar 2011 21:18:28 -0600")
- References: <13706.12598.949480.662100@bylbo.nowhere.earth> <E0zDnSV-0007YP-00@night> <13807.4760.80799.521978@bylbo.nowhere.earth> <87lj83d8yo.fsf_-_@windlord.stanford.edu> <20100819084352.GB8057@rivendell> <87zkwg9ajj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20100821063501.GB22862@rivendell> <87mxsgwf0i.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20100821144710.GF22862@rivendell> <20110305031828.GA22914@elie>
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:
> 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
>> sentence...
>>
>> But the second wording is better IMO.
> Assuming that can be taken as a second, we have:
> Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> (message #75)
> Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> (message #70)
> Russ, presumably
> so I think this should be ready to go. Thanks for your work.
Yup, this patch has now been committed for the next release. Sorry about
the delay!
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: