Re: #197870, #197891, #197954

[Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>]

From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>
Subject: #197870, #197891, #197954
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:59:02 +0200

> Hi,

Hi,

> In the config-stage of tetex-base-2.0.2 we do something like:
> 
> if [ -f ${etcdir}/updmap ]; then
>     db_input high tetex-base/oldupdm || true
>     db_go || true
>     db_get tetex-base/oldupdm || true
>     if [ X"$RET" = X"true" ]; then
>         rm -f ${etcdir}/updmap
>         rm -f ${etcdir}/updmap.dpkg-*
>     fi
> fi
> 
> . That causes the mentioned bugs (or one could say it is caused by
> the buggy pxfonts-package). Unfortunately I don't understand why we
> do that. Could anybody be so kind to enlighten me? ${etcdir}/updmap
> will be removed anyway during remove as it belongs to tetex-base.
> Maybe there will be a updmap.dpkg* left as it is marked as
> configuration file. We could leave a message in the updmap-file if we
> hand over the removal-job to dpkg.

Well, please remark that

- ${etcdir}/updmap itself is a conffile so not removed
during "remove", especially it is not removed during
"upgrade".  So there could be two updmap in a system, one is
an obsolete ${etcdir}/updmap and the other is a new /usr/bin/updmap.

- further, when one upgraded tetex-base then ${etcdir}/updmap 
did not belong to tetex-base anymore so not a conffile, which means 
that even when one purges tetex-base afterwards ${/etcdir}/updmap 
will be not removed.

So I guess we need to do the above.

The simplest fix would be modifying as follows?

    if [ X"$RET" = X"true" ]; then
        rm -f ${etcdir}/updmap
        rm -f ${etcdir}/updmap.dpkg-*
	cat "You can safely remove this file." > ${etcdir}/updmap
    fi

Regards,			2003-9-16(Tue)

-- 
 Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
 Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
 Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima