Iain Lane (laney) wrote on the merge proposal page:
> I was kind of hoping you'd get rid of the deletion completely and
> just insert the line to disable if necessary when you detect it
> wasn't there. Couldn't we do that instead?
>
> The deletion is bad because it makes dpkg think that the user
> performed this action when actually he didn't. dpkg then won't
> reinstall this file for you.
>
> We should also be updating im-switch to insert this line in the
> normal way - this postinst change is only supposed to be a failsafe.
Hi Laney,
Personally I wouldn't mind to drop the md5sum check/deletion part. One
reason I didn't (so far) was out of respect for possible Debian and
Ubuntu policies. But that's probably faulty logic - I guess that adding
the disable line doesn't violate any policies more than deleting a file
in another package. Maybe less.
I'm also disinclined to differ from the Debian version more than
necessary, so I'd prefer a consensus before proposing that change.
Hopefully we'll end up with an im-config package that is identical with
the Debian one - it's a 3.0 (native) package. On that topic version 0.20
has been released at Debian.
A while ago Osamu mentioned an idea to apply patches conditionally...
As regards updating im-switch... Added an im-switch task as a reminder.
OTOH, I know that Aron and Osamu consider im-switch to be 'dead' and a
candidate for archive removal. In the light of that, is it really worth
it to spend time with SRUing that change?
Osamu and Aron, what do you think?
** Also affects: im-switch (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1101836
Title:
Needs to keep hands off when removed but not purged
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/im-config/+bug/1101836/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
