Bug#269828: tetex-base: Provide script to purge old map files
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 08:02:36PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Ross Boylan <RossBoylan@stanfordalumni.org> schrieb:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 11:15:59AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> Ross Boylan <RossBoylan@stanfordalumni.org> schrieb:
> >>
> >> > Package: tetex-base
> >> > Version: 2.0.2b-3
> >> > Severity: wishlist
> >> >
> >> > README.Debian.gz, in the second major section, indicates there are a
> >> > bunch of map files that are no longer used, but that Debian policy
> >> > prohibits removing them.
> >> >
> >> > Could you provide a script that removes them, for those who wish too?
> >>
> >> You can use /usr/share/doc/tetex-base/remove-oldmaps. But a pointer to
> >> it in tetex-base's README.Debian is missing.
> >>
> >> > First, should a thorough removal also modify
> >> > /var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-{base,extra}.conffiles? If so, how?
> >>
> >> Which modifications do you mean? The old conffiles are yet removed from
> >> that file, if they are no longer in the deb.
> > I don't follow the "yet" in the previous sentence. I assume the
> > meaning is that the old conffiles are removed....
>
> The old conffiles are removed if the administrator removes them - this
> cannot be done by the package, because it would be against Debian
> Policy.
>
> But the record of the conffiles in
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-{base,extra}.conffiles is removed as soon as
> the packages are upgraded to a version that does not provide them. I
> could not find anything explicit on this in the Policy, but I tried it:
> I logged into a sid chroot, included a woody line in sources.list and
> installed woody's tetex-base. Then I upgraded to sid, and there was no
> record in tetex-base.conffiles of those files.
>
> Did you notice something different?
No. I was just fooled by the parenthetical remark mentioned in the
next paragraph. You have since deleted the remark, so I think all's
well.
>
> > The modification I meant was removing the files from
> > *{base,extra}.conffiles, but it seems that's taken care of. The
> > README says "(but still be registered in
> > /var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-{base,extra}.conffiles)". I thought that
> > meant the indicated {base,extra}.conffiles would still have entries
> > for the deleted files, and needed to be cleaned up.
>
> No, that means that sometimes I'm talking (or rather writing)
> rubbish. Thanks for the hint.
>
> > I suggest the following changes:
> > 1. Mention remove-oldmaps (perhaps adding you need to be root, though
> > that's pretty obvious).
> > 2. Make remove-oldmaps executable (if that's not against policy).
>
> It would be, I think. And it doesn't hurt if people have to think twice
> before executing it. There's a reason why dpkg does not remove obsolete
> conffiles, namely because people may have local changes in there.
>
> > 3. Change "Therefore, if you used testing, unstable or
> > some backports after woody's release, they might not exist on your
> > system (but still be registered in
> > /var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-{base,extra}.conffiles)." to
> > "So if you used testing, unstable or some backports after woody's
> > release, the files may already be deleted."
> > I think the original parenthetical remark only adds confusion. At
> > least, it seems to have confused me!
>
> Yes, that should be changed.
>
> > 4. It might be good to add, at the end of section 2,
> > "Do NOT delete other files in the directory, which continues to be
> > used.
>
> I have checked in the patch attached below.
>
> Regards, Frank
>
> +++ tetex-base/debian/README.debian 2004/09/04 17:33:50 1.11
> @@ -155,15 +155,21 @@
> 2. Changes in handling of map files (unneeded files in /etc/texmf/dvips)
>
> -The following files in /etc/texmf/dvips/ used to be conffiles (i.e.,
> +Font map files previously were installed as conffiles (i.e.,
> configuration files managed by dpkg) in older versions of tetex-base
> -and tetex-extra (e.g. in woody), but are not included and not used in
> -current versions - some were also managed by ucf. Because of Debian
> -Policy and dpkg's way to handle conffiles, they will not be removed
> -when you upgrade, although they are useless. You can quite safely
> -delete them (but then you won't be able to downgrade any more unless
> -you purge the packages). Any changes you made previously in these
> -files will no longer have any effect.
> +and tetex-extra (e.g. in woody) in /etc/texmf/dvips. Since it is in
> +fact not necessary to change them, they are now treated as ordinary
> +files and installed below /usr/share/texmf/dvips. Because of Debian
> +Policy and dpkg's way to handle conffiles, the copies in
> +/etc/texmf/dvips will not be removed when you upgrade, although they
> +are useless. You can quite safely delete them (but then you won't be
> +able to downgrade any more unless you purge the packages). Any changes
> +you made previously in these files will no longer have any effect.
> +
> +It is usually a good idea to remove those files if you have not
> +changed them. You can use the script
> +/usr/share/doc/tetex-base/remove-oldmaps to do this. The list of files
> +is:
>
> antp.cfg antt.cfg pl.cfg
> config.qf
> @@ -184,8 +190,12 @@
> Some intermediate versions of tetex deleted those files in maintainer
> scripts (which was a bug). Therefore, if you used testing, unstable or
> some backports after woody's release, they might not exist on your
> -system (but still be registered in
> -/var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-{base,extra}.conffiles).
> +system.
> +
> +Do NOT delete other files in the directory, which continues to be
> +used.
> +
> +
>
>
> 3. Construction of tetex-base_2.0.2a.orig.tar.gz from the upstream
>
Looks good!
Reply to: