[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Recovering /var (package status only)

On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 01:03:00AM -0500, Travis Crump wrote:
> Question about false positives(/usr/share/doc/ directories that don't 
> correspond to a package):  Are they a bug or is there nothing wrong with 
> them?  On my system I have the following false positives:
> debian-reference-en, debian-reference-common: /usr/share/doc/Debian
> doc-linux-text: /usr/share/doc/FAQ
> doc-linux-text: /usr/share/doc/HOWTO
> doc-debian: /usr/share/doc/debian

doc-linux-text and doc-debian are special cases, probably
debian-reference-* too. I tried to formalize the upper-case rule for
doc-linux-* on debian-policy in August 2000, but never got round to
following through on the approving noises I got in response.

> libecasound7: /usr/share/doc/ecasound
> emu-tools: /usr/share/doc/emu-tools-0.9.4
> kpilot, kdebase-doc, korganizer, kdelibs3: /usr/share/doc/kde
> kdebase-doc: /usr/share/doc/kdebase
> e2fsprogs: /usr/share/doc/libcomerr2
> e2fsprogs: /usr/share/doc/libss2
> svgalibg1: /usr/share/doc/svgalib
> tetex-base, tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf
> libxine-dev: /usr/share/doc/xine

I think those are generally convenience symlinks or the targets of
convenience symlinks ...?

> The only one that would cause 'problems' would be 'kde' which would 
> cause a lot of new stuff to be installed, but no real harm would be done 
> especially since I couldn't find any false negatives.  The first four 
> and kde and kdebase and texmf appear intentional, but the others seem to 
> be cruft left over from when packages changed names.  Should they have 
> been removed by package scripts at some point or were they left there on 
> purpose?

They shouldn't have been removed by package scripts: since they appear
in 'dpkg -S' output, they're still first-class members of the .deb, not
just random directories mkdired by a postinst script at some point. I'm
not sure if they should be removed or not, though.

Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: