Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

2007-01-30 Thread Dominique Dumont
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is the beauty of free software. If you find it so > frustrating, write up a generic tool, and contribute it. And that > would follow the grand old UNIX tradition of each command doing one > thing well. I may be of some help here. I'

Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

2007-01-24 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:52:53 +0100, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I haven't thought about this in the necessary depth. To a newbie DD > who has only been with Debian for six years it looks like ucf is not > completely finished. ucf scratches the itch I had to begin with, and it

Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

2007-01-24 Thread Marc Haber
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 01:14:59PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:46:20 +0100, Marc Haber > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 11:38:39AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:17:27 +0100, Marc Haber > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >

Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

2007-01-20 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:46:20 +0100, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 11:38:39AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:17:27 +0100, Marc Haber >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> There is no need to fork ucf to create a command that provides >> functio

Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

2007-01-20 Thread Marc Haber
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 11:38:39AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:17:27 +0100, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 10:31:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> This is the beauty of fre software. If you find it so frustrating, > >> write up a

Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

2007-01-20 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:17:27 +0100, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 10:31:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> This is the beauty of fre software. If you find it so frustrating, >> write up a generic tool, and contribute it. And that would follow >> the grand old

Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

2007-01-20 Thread Marc Haber
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 10:31:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > This is the beauty of fre software. If you find it so > frustrating, write up a generic tool, and contribute it. And that > would follow the grand old UNIX tradition of each command doing one > thing well. The task at h

Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

2007-01-20 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 10:47:16 +0100, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Yes, that sounds sensible. It is, however, frustrating that there is > no method (for example, offered by ucf) to do this without that much > coding in maintainer scripts. This is the beauty of fre software. If y

Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

2007-01-20 Thread Marc Haber
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 10:28:41PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > You will have to test with both sarge and etch dpkg (until after etch > releases). Colin Watson recently wrote [0] about one of the ssh bugs > and how this was complicated for him. > > You have to include the logic in the preinst, s

Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

2007-01-20 Thread Marc Haber
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 09:43:04PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Marc Haber wrote: > > I have a package with a bunch of configuration files that are managed > > by my maintainer scripts and not by dpkg. I now need one of them > > (a.conf) to vanish. > > > > How do I do this in

Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

2007-01-20 Thread Santiago Vila
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Justin Pryzby wrote: > You will have to test with both sarge and etch dpkg (until after etch > releases). Colin Watson recently wrote [0] about one of the ssh bugs > and how this was complicated for him. > > You have to include the logic in the preinst, since the prerm is fo

Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

2007-01-19 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 09:34:28AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > Hi, > > I have a package with a bunch of configuration files that are managed > by my maintainer scripts and not by dpkg. I now need one of them > (a.conf) to vanish. > > How do I do this in a clean way? I am thinking about the followi

Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

2007-01-19 Thread Florent Rougon
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Instead of 1,2,3 you could do 1,2,3 only when upgrading from a version > previous than the one not having a.conf anymore Sure. > and in case that (3) happens, keep a.conf untouched, instead of > renaming it (assuming the program will not read a.conf any

Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

2007-01-19 Thread Santiago Vila
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Marc Haber wrote: > Hi, > > I have a package with a bunch of configuration files that are managed > by my maintainer scripts and not by dpkg. I now need one of them > (a.conf) to vanish. > > How do I do this in a clean way? I am thinking about the following: > > (1) Let the

Removing self-managed conffiles?

2007-01-19 Thread Marc Haber
Hi, I have a package with a bunch of configuration files that are managed by my maintainer scripts and not by dpkg. I now need one of them (a.conf) to vanish. How do I do this in a clean way? I am thinking about the following: (1) Let the new package version know about the md5sum of the last