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

Bug#769390: unblock: sane-backends/1.0.24-4



Control: tag -1 moreinfo

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:30:42AM +0100, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:
> diff -Nru sane-backends-1.0.24/debian/libsane-common.preinst sane-backends-1.0.24/debian/libsane-common.preinst
> --- sane-backends-1.0.24/debian/libsane-common.preinst	1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
> +++ sane-backends-1.0.24/debian/libsane-common.preinst	2014-10-25 13:15:35.000000000 +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +set -e
> +
> +# From http://wiki.debian.org/DpkgConffileHandling
> +# Remove a no-longer used conffile
> +rm_conffile() {
> +    PKGNAME="$1"
> +    CONFFILE="$2"
> +    if [ -e "$CONFFILE" ]; then
> +        md5sum="`md5sum \"$CONFFILE\" | sed -e \"s/ .*//\"`"
> +        old_md5sum="`dpkg-query -W -f='${Conffiles}' $PKGNAME | sed -n -e \"\\\\' $CONFFILE '{s/ obsolete$//;s/.* //p}\"`"
> +        if [ "$md5sum" != "$old_md5sum" ]; then
> +            echo "Obsolete conffile $CONFFILE has been modified by you."
> +            echo "Saving as $CONFFILE.dpkg-bak ..."
> +            mv -f "$CONFFILE" "$CONFFILE".dpkg-bak
> +        else
> +            echo "Removing obsolete conffile $CONFFILE ..."
> +            rm -f "$CONFFILE"
> +        fi
> +    fi
> +}

Would dpkg's maintscript helper be of use here?

> diff -Nru sane-backends-1.0.24/debian/libsane.symbols.amd64.org sane-backends-1.0.24/debian/libsane.symbols.amd64.org
> --- sane-backends-1.0.24/debian/libsane.symbols.amd64.org	2014-10-08 12:55:49.000000000 +0200
> +++ sane-backends-1.0.24/debian/libsane.symbols.amd64.org	1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100

What's this file and why is it removed? It's not mentioned in your
changelog, unless I've misunderstood.

-- 
Jonathan Wiltshire                                      jmw@debian.org
Debian Developer                         http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: