CC'ed the bug report 2009/6/3 Savvas Radevic <vice...@gmail.com>: > Sean, thank you, very helpful! > > Rafael: >> That said, i am wondering why the libmtp.rules files should be versioned, >> as we are doing currently. Perhaps, the 45-libmpt8.rules files would >> work just fine with previous versions (5, 6, and 7) of the package. I >> think we must test this. >> >> What do you think? > > Well, then Raphael was right, we need a libmtp-common :) > Worth a shot to try, but I don't have a cellphone anymore that needs libmtp. > :( > > One more thing the .fdi file should not be versioned too: > ../../20-lib...@soversion@.fdi usr/share/hal/fdi/information/20thirdparty > > I've done some work to get this working, attached the git patch (based > on current git). > As mentioned, it needs testing (virtual machine?). :) > > * Check if libmtp5 and libmtp6 (<< 0.2.1-2) are installed. If not, remove > /etc/udev/libmtp.rules (Closes: #531538) > * debian/libmtp.postinst.in: Remove dangling symlink > /etc/udev/rules.d/libmtp.rules > * libmtp-common: Unversioned /lib/udev/rules.d/45-libmtp.rules and > /usr/share/hal/fdi/information/20thirdparty/20-libmtp.fdi > * Remove old conffile /lib/udev/rules.d/45-libmtp8.rules > > Let me know what you think! > P.S. I'm not sure about "rm_conffile $PACKAGE > /lib/udev/rules.d/45-libmtp8.rules", but since that's the default one, > simply using rm_conffile for it *should* work, needs testing. :) >
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
