Your message dated Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:10:03 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#285030: does not ignore .dpkg-* files
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 10 Dec 2004 09:26:11 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Dec 10 01:26:11 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from armagnac.ifi.unizh.ch (albatross.madduck.net) [130.60.75.72]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1Cch2R-0002ip-00; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 01:26:11 -0800
Received: from localhost (albatross.madduck.net [127.0.0.1])
by albatross.madduck.net (postfix) with ESMTP id 3699F8BC2BC
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:26:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (lapse.madduck.net [130.60.75.59])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "cirrus.madduck.net", Issuer "madduck.net CA" (verified OK))
by albatross.madduck.net (postfix) with ESMTP id 31B0E8BC489
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:26:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 3C35C22F104; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 19:53:10 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 19:53:10 +0100
From: martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: does not ignore .dpkg-* files
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5vNYLRcllDrimb99"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Reportbug-Version: 3.2
Organization: Debian GNU/Linux
X-OS: Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 kernel 2.6.9-cirrus i686
X-Motto: Keep the good times rollin'
X-Subliminal-Message: debian/rules!
X-Debbugs-No-Ack: please spare me
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
X-Virus-Scanned: by albatross.madduck.net
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.3 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_12_24,
HAS_PACKAGE,X_DEBBUGS_NO_ACK autolearn=ham
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
--5vNYLRcllDrimb99
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Package: apt
Version: 0.5.27
Severity: important
During an upgrade, a package may leave a .dpkg-dist or .dpkg-old
file in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d. APT does not handle these files
specially (according to the source code), and thus can potentially
cause breakage if an old file is present.
Please consider using `run-parts --list` instead of the custom
parsing of the directory listing.
--=20
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' : proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
=20
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
--5vNYLRcllDrimb99
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBuJ8WIgvIgzMMSnURAuF+AKDbcEU4XZ5hjvaKZCoLElvsPlUPSQCg60E8
rRuFKfX4EezCofG2ETv5fZg=
=EQMv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--5vNYLRcllDrimb99--
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 285030-done) by bugs.debian.org; 28 Dec 2004 03:10:05 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 27 19:10:05 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mta11.adelphia.net [68.168.78.205]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1Cj7kK-0006VU-00; Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:10:05 -0800
Received: from mizar.alcor.net ([69.167.148.207]) by mta11.adelphia.net
(InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with ESMTP
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:09:23 -0500
Received: by mizar.alcor.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id CDD88B8961; Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:10:03 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:10:03 -0800
From: Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#285030: does not ignore .dpkg-* files
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 07:53:10PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> Package: apt
> Version: 0.5.27
> Severity: important
>
> During an upgrade, a package may leave a .dpkg-dist or .dpkg-old
> file in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d. APT does not handle these files
> specially (according to the source code), and thus can potentially
> cause breakage if an old file is present.
Please consider actually checking whether there is a bug before filing a bug
report. To do otherwise is disrespectful and wasteful of the maintainer's
time.
> Please consider using `run-parts --list` instead of the custom parsing of
> the directory listing.
APT's dependencies on external programs need to be minimized for obvious
reasons.
--
- mdz
