Bug#336714: tetex-base: asked about upgrade of previously non-existent conffile /etc/texdoctk/texdocrc

[Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 04:02:52PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:09:36AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> wrote:
> >> > When upgrading to tetex-base 3.0-10, I was asked about my changes to
> >> > the file /etc/texdoctk/texdocrc through ucf. When I asked to see the
> >> > differences against my installed version, the diff was against /dev/null
> >> > so every line was new.
> >> 
> >> Was this an upgrade from 3.0-9 or from 2.0.2c-9?
> > 2.0.2c-9.
> 
> I have found one possible explanation for this:
> 
> - This system was a woody system somewhen (or testing/unstable with
>   packages as later released with woody), with the texdocrc file
>   belonging to the texdoctk package
[snip]

It was never a woody system exactly. It was installed with testing or
unstable in January 2005, before sarge's release.

> - You upgraded to sarge (or at least sarge's package population),
>   tetex-{base,bin} replaced texdoctk (leaving it in state rc), and took
>   over its files.  However, we took over texdocrc with ucf, and
>   therefore dpkg doesn't know that it now belongs to tetex-base
> 
> - You purged texdoctk (maybe in an effort to purge many rc packages you
>   didn't care about), and dpkg removed the file
> 
> - You upgraded tetex-base which produced the problem you reported.
> 
> If this is right, the reason for the bug is "tetex-base didn't take over
> files properly".  Does that sound reasonable?

Yes, if the date of texdoctk's removal lines up.

Thanks,
Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>