Here's the commit I made to allow removing conffiles in the future.
(Specific filenames were added in later commits.) It's rather
straightforward (mostly copied from the Debian wiki), but I wouldn't
mind peer review just in case I screwed up.
As mentioned in the description, I decided to eschew t
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 07:55:13PM +0200, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote:
> Now where you have agreed on how to handle this file, you could probably
> also find a solution for /etc/logcheck/ignore.d.server/ntp - which is
> shipped in logcheck-database as well as ntp since quite a long time (and
> ju
I'm reassigning this bug solely to logcheck-database, since there is no
point in bothering sendmail-base's maintainer any longer.
(Although it certainly would be polite to drop him a note once the fix
is uploaded, so that he can add a Conflicts to the proper version.)
--
My apologies if I sou
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 01:30:56PM -0400, Frédéric Brière wrote:
> Alright, I'll go ahead and commit this fix.
Now where you have agreed on how to handle this file, you could probably
also find a solution for /etc/logcheck/ignore.d.server/ntp - which is
shipped in logcheck-database as well as ntp
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 07:21:52PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I believe you have to make such removals in preinst or postrm, which
> are both also called on upgrades, aren't they?
You're right, I'm an idiot.This is no different from the common
"Removing a conffile" situation, which is han
also sprach Frédéric Brière [2009.08.22.1855 +0200]:
> Nah, that could easily be avoided by making sure that the (unmodified)
> conffile doesn't belong to any package when postinst is called. The
> basic idea is to avoid this sequence:
>
> - Unpacking logcheck-database
> - Unpacking sendmail
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 08:44:13PM -0400, Frédéric Brière wrote:
> foolproof? (I'm trying to think of a sitation where this would result
> in us pulling the rug from under sendmail-base's feet. What about when
> installing s-b *and* upgrading l-d in one swoop? Would that fool dpkg?)
Nah, that c
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 08:27:32PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> etc/logcheck/ignore.d.server/sendmail
This file was brought to life by 1e1ad02 during the whole viol-merge
saga. This was a mistake, as it's belonged to sendmail-base for years.
What would be the best course of action? Should we
Package: logcheck-database,sendmail-base
Version: logcheck-database/1.2.69
Version: sendmail-base/8.14.3-9
Severity: serious
User: trei...@debian.org
Usertags: edos-file-overwrite
Date: 2009-08-18
Architecture: amd64
Distribution: sid
Hi,
automatic installation tests of packages that share a fil
9 matches
Mail list logo
