On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:24:03AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 12, Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I tried to reproduce this by upgrading from 0.056-3 (testing) to > > 0.068-2 (unstable), but the problem did not manifest. I think > Because 0.056-3 is the second release which provides a permissions.rules > file, so you did not test the upgrade procedure (but still, I see no > reason why it should fail). > But are you sure that you had a version older than the one in > stable/testing installed before you upgraded and experienced the > problem? If you had not it means that permissions.rules was already > installed by the 0.056-2 or 0.056-3 upgrade.
No I am not sure. > > only added the symlinks if they didn't exist individually, > > rather than aborting if any of them exist. Or perhaps prompting > > the user. > No, this is a design choice: the package never tries to modify a > configuration modified by the local admin, unless a new file is > introduced. Fine, but my suggestion is to this on a per-file basis, rather than treating the entire directory atomically as you currently do. The current situation seems a bit more fragile than is neccessary. That said, it does seem that the problem was caused by some modifications made in the past - though I am still not sure what. And as such probably only affects a small number of users. I am comfortable with closing this (again). -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
