On 3 March 2014 13:51, Dominique Dumont <d...@debian.org> wrote: > On Monday 03 March 2014 08:59:01 Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote: >> It is upstream's choice. But I will include such a patch, it is quite >> trivial. But this is not the case here. >> The problem is that installing the package asks for users' decision >> (keep config, replace with maintainer, etc). >> Applying the patch won't, unfortunately, solve my problem here. Thank >> you for the suggestion anyway. > > It won't solve the problem for the *next* release. But the problem should be > solved after. So I guess that's a fair solution (even if not ideal).
I agree this is a nice solution with a patch, I will integrate it for sure. However what should be done in such situation with bug 740332 ? Should I close it with the new release? > > If you really want to solve this problem for next release, you will have to: > * stop delivering mararc in /etc/maradns/ (i.e. no more conffile problem) > * manage mararc file in postinst, i.e. update mararc on package upgrade and > create a fresh marac on new installation. > > The last point is not easy to get right. > > For what it's worth, I'm trying to handle lcdproc configuration this way > (while providing automatic configuration upgrade). [1] > > That said, Russ's proposal is probably the most simple. > > HTH > > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/PackageConfigUpgrade > -- Pozdrawiam, Dariusz Dwornikowski, Assistant Institute of Computing Science, Poznań University of Technology www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ddwornikowski/ room 2.7.2 BTiCW | tel. +48 61 665 29 41 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cagnkunfp8pu-y3zqpv9fgdadmthtz7uunfaq74opc6_e_79...@mail.gmail.com
