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"?
Hello Marc, this bug is 100% reproducible (try with piupart) and affect the sarge to etch upgrade by adding a completly meaningless dpkg conffiles handling query which is worse than a debconf prompt since it cannot be preseeded. > 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. At the very least you should make sure the dpkg conffiles problem does not occur when the user has selected the default answers to all the debconf questions. A better way would be to switch to ucf which is much more flexible than dpkg conffiles handling. Simply ignoring the bug is not an option. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
