On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 15:06:32 +0100 Chris Hofstaedtler <[email protected]> wrote: > Control: tags -1 + help > > On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 12:31:53AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > > AFAICS, the two files are now contained in util-linux-extra (again as > > conffiles). > > > > On a Debian sid system of mine (that I typically upgrade every day - so > > it got every version in between installed),... the files are in fact > > *only* registered as conffiles for util-linux-extra, and don't show up > > as obsoletes. > [..] > > So for some reason it's still registered to both as conffile. > > I'll just quote Mark who worked on the change: > > On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 Mark Hindley wrote: > | It was a conscious decision (on my part) not to remove the conffiles at this > | stage. Whilst I accept this leaves cruft on systems that don't have initscripts > | installed, it has the benefit that user modified conffiles are preserved during > | the transition to bin:initscripts, as required by the Policy. > | > | I think this cleanup can happen saftely in the Forky release cycle. > | > | For reference, the udev maintainers have recently tried this cleanup at an > | earlier stage and it has not been straightforward. > > It is still unclear to me how to tell dpkg that the files moved > between packages and it should not just delete them.
The conffiles were actually removed from util-linux-extra in version 2.39.2-3 (commit 13ccd799bf43106). So they both appear as obsolete, and associated to util-linux-extra. They should be cleant using dpkg-maintscript-helper or its frontend in dh_installdeb (with a util-linux-extra.maintscript file). -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ https://www.debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
