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

Bug#684732: unblock: nut/2.6.4-2



Control: tags -1 moreinfo

On Sun, Dec  2, 2012 at 19:43:44 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote:

> [...]
> > > +    # make sure that conffiles are secured and have the correct
> > > ownerships
> > > +    if [ -d /etc/nut/ ] ; then
> > > +      chown root:nut /etc/nut/
> > > +    fi
> > > +    for file in nut.conf upsmon.conf upssched.conf ; do
> > > +        if [ -f /etc/nut/$file ] ; then
> > > +            chown root:nut /etc/nut/$file
> > > +            chmod 640 /etc/nut/$file
> > > +        fi
> > > +    done
> > > +
> > 
> > I still think the chowns/chmods shouldn't be done on upgrades, if for
> > whatever reason the local admin changed those that's their choice.
> 
> Is this really blocking the transition? The version in squeeze is also
> doing this. We could remove this later I guess.
> 
Well I'm not comfortable unblocking that code.

> [...]
> > > -      # re process nut.conf MODE so that it can be sourced
> > > -      NUT_MODE=`grep -e '^ *MODE' /etc/nut/nut.conf | tr -d " "`
> > > -      sed "s/^ *MODE.*/$NUT_MODE/" /etc/nut/nut.conf
> > > > /etc/nut/nut.conf.new
> > > -      mv /etc/nut/nut.conf.new /etc/nut/nut.conf
> > > +    if dpkg --compare-versions "$2" le "2.6.4-2~" ; then
> > > +        rm -f /etc/init.d/nut
> > > +        update-rc.d nut remove >/dev/null
> > 
> > If /etc/init.d/nut was a conffile, I don't think you get to rm -f it
> > on upgrade, at least if it was modified.
> 
> IIRC, I didn't use dpkg-maintscript-helper because the file is owned by
> the nut package in squeeze (which is now a metapackage) and it was not
> really working as expected. The init file should probably also be
> removed in the nut-client package to support partial upgrades.
> 
What's the status here?  (You can do thinks correctly without using
dpkg-maintscript-helper, fwiw.)

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: