[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lees) wrote on 02.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 30 May 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lees) wrote on 27.05.97 in > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > There are ways to avoid this. For example, modify dpkg not to include > > > any line with "config=yes" in it in the md5sum of certain files. > > > > This is a troll, right? > > Wrong. Well, it should be. > > Or maybe you have forgotten how conffiles are actually handled: > > > > (old=original install, new=this install, current=possibly edited version) > > > > If old md5 = new md5, ignore new file (package unchanged) > > If old md5 = current md5, install new file (conffile was not edited) > > > otherwise, prompt (both changed) > > > > Your change would mean that in case 2, dpkg would have to figure out how > > to put the variables from the old script into the new one. > > But, for a package which adds config info, the new md5 != the old md5. > Therefore, it would ask! No. While the new md5 != the old, we still have the old = the current, and so dpkg will NOT ask, but silently upgrade. At least that's how it currently works, and also how it ought to work. I certainly don't want to be asked to upgrade a conffile that I never even looked at. > non-cfgtool md5 != cfgtoolized md5: old md5 != new md5. > local file not modified: update anyway to use new cfgtool version. > local file modified: > > cfgtool md5 == cfgtool md5: old md5=new md5 > local file "not modified" (enough) - install new > THEN, update from cfg database. > > See, it does work. No, it doesn't. You forget that there are three md5 sums / file versions involved, not two - *even though you quote me explaining it*! MfG Kai -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
