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

Re: duplicate logrotate configurations for cups



Laverne Schrock wrote:
> After looking around, I found the culprits
> were /etc/logrotate.d/cups-daemon and /etc/logrotate.d/cups.dpkg-remove

I think you may have hit a bug.  That cups.dpkg-remove isn't in the
tabooext list.

       tabooext [+] list
              The  current  taboo  extension  list is changed (see the include
              directive for information on the taboo extensions). If a +  pre‐
              cedes  the  list of extensions, the current taboo extension list
              is augmented, otherwise it is replaced. At  startup,  the  taboo
              extension   list  contains  .rpmsave,  .rpmorig,  ~,  .disabled,
              .dpkg-old, .dpkg-dist, .dpkg-new, .cfsaved, .ucf-old, .ucf-dist,
              .ucf-new, .rpmnew, .swp, .cfsaved, .rhn-cfg-tmp-*

> cups-daemon is provided by the cups-daemon package, but dpkg cannot find
> the provider for cups.dpkg-remove

> I have two questions:
> 1) Where did /etc/logrotate.d/cups.dpkg-remove come from?
> 2) This configurations are for the same file, but they do slightly
> different things. Which one should I remove?

Here is a good reference about .dpkg-remove files.

  http://raphaelhertzog.com/2010/10/14/correctly-renaming-a-conffile-in-debian-package-maintainer-scripts/

I think you had previously modified the file and the postinst script
detected this and moved it to .dpkg-remove but then the process
stopped there.  It wasn't in the tabooext list and was therefore also
run by logrotate.  I think there is a bug there somewhere in the
postinst script and/or logrotate tabooext that allowed this situation
to occur.  But I am not exactly sure where.

I would remove cups.dpkg-remove.  And/or merge in your local changes
with the new cups-daemon file.  If you can determine where things went
snafu then a bug report against the cups and/or logrotate packages
would probably in be order.

Bob

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: