On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:31:34 +0100
Geert-Jan Hut <Geert.Jan.Hut@hutsoftware.nl> wrote:
> > > There was only one (obvious) additional problem.
> > >
> > > Installing alml again got me the question if I wanted to install the
> > > maintainers version of /etc/texmf/texmf.d/94alml.cnf (as I obviously
> > > changed the file) and the diff between the two versions showed exactly
> > > the changes above.
> > > I chose to keep my newly edited version, but I guess that if I had chosen
> > > to update to the maintainers version - effectively removing the comment
> > > signs ('%') - alml would not have been able to install, as I think -
> > > looking at the generated output - that alml also executes 'texconfig
> > > init'.
> >
> > No, the maintainer of alml completely misunderstand the
> > scheme of update-texmf. He should not provide 94alml.cnf
> > as a conffile but a configuration file then the modified
> > file is never, never overwritten by the package.
>
> Ok, but maybe the two of you should get in touch with one another, as we now
> have this circular dependency situation, in which both packages do not
> install without manual intervention.
my debian/ directory does not contain conffiles file anymore.
I removed it since I had to use configuration files and
not conffiles.
I don't know if I have to do something else as in the policy (3.5.8.0, 2002-11-15) I read:
"conffile
A file listed in a package's conffiles file, and is treated specially by dpkg (see Details of configuration, Section 6.6). "
So please check out if there is something I should do.
Gaetano
P.S.: exsuse me for long quoting but I thought it was necessary.Attachment:
pgpk9ltilqZJv.pgp
Description: PGP signature