On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 02:10:19AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > found 352629 1:1.19-3 > > WTF? Could you please at least give some sort of *reasoning* for this > fucking stupid reopening? Besides "Bah, I don't like it"? I asked Bill if there was a better way, since he wrote post-sarge about the inconvenience of conffile prompts:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/06/msg00006.html I understand that you can't trivially revert to dpkg conffiles, but he agrees that unnecessary prompts during upgrade are evil. > Reverting to dpkg conffiles buys us one less debconf prompt for users > that install the package *and* makes the conffile handling more > robust. There's *no* way to merge changes done via debconf back to a > generic conffile for all users. OTOH, the content of that conffile is > more or less completly irrelevant for most users. Keeping the > debconf-based config handling would make this a problem for all future > releases. Why not just make it a low priority question? Also, ucf exists to provide common config file handling; the manpage specifically mentions transitioning to "conffile status". You might also check the debconf "seen" flag, and if both of the prompts are not "seen", and the md5sum matches that expected by your debconf defaults, then remove the file in preinst, as I've documented at #335276. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
