Control: tags -1 + pending On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 02:28:39AM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Package: urlview > Version: 1b-1 > > a test with piuparts revealed that your package uses files from > /usr/share/doc in its maintainer scripts which is a violation of > Policy 12.3: "Packages must not require the existence of any files in > /usr/share/doc/ in order to function." > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#additional-documentation > > These files must be moved to /usr/share/$PACKAGE and may be symlinked > from /usr/share/doc/$PACKAGE. Comparing 0.9-24 and 1b-1, I see that I started to use ucf with a /usr/share/urlview/examples/sample.urlview /etc/urlview/system.urlview stanza. I'm gonna be frank: I don't know why, since this file is already covered by the conffile mechanism. And, re-reading the conffile sexion, https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ap-pkg-conffiles.html > Note that a package should not modify a dpkg-handled conffile in its > maintainer scripts. Doing this will lead to dpkg giving the user > confusing and possibly dangerous options for conffile update when the > package is upgraded. which is precisely what ucf does.
Thankfully, we're in a fortunate situation of there having only been one urlview with ucf, and /e/u/s.u is installed (and conffile-tagged) in both versions, so an upgrade-test shows we can drop it with the normal conffile mechanism correctly handling the situation. Fixed in https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/urlview.deb/commit/13cd0e45d02da500ff0b8ed32701bd9ac9131454 Thank you for your report! This would be a lot uglier if we ended up with multiple versions with double conffile+ucf handling, I think. Best, наб
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
