Bug#336714: tetex-base: asked about upgrade of previously non-existent conffile /etc/texdoctk/texdocrc
Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 03:26:29PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 04:02:52PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> >>
>> >> - 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.
>>
>> And you never upgraded to one of the teTeX-2.9/3.0 versions in
>> experimental?
>
> No.
>
>> No, it doesn't - if you installed testing or unstable in 2005 (or even
>> in 2004), texdoctk was already gone by then, and dpkg wouldn't know any
>> owner of the texdocrc file. I have no clue what is going on.
>
> FWIW this occurred in my amd64 installation, but my i386 chroot didn't
> have this issue. It was installed within a few weeks of the amd64.
> However I probably have not done any (or as much) purging in the chroot.
I don't have an explanation, then. But I also don't see how we could
debug this further - finding out what might have deleted a file at an
unknown time point in the past seems hard to do. Do you agree that we
can close this bug as unreproducible?
> (My i386 chroot did have the same problem with 00updmap.cfg btw.)
This is a bug I understand (somehow), and it's going to be fixed in the
next upload of tex-common.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: