Hello, Sorry for the delay, I was abroad and off-line for a week.
So I just talked with the sysadmin in charge of the mailhost (he is in cc:). We're going slightly out of topic for debian-security but I keep it there for the record. > > A file in /etc that was overwritten silently is a bug. Please file one > > with the bug tracking system if this is the case. > > But please make sure first you didn't actually answer "Yes" to dpkg > asking whether to overwrite the file, and that you don't have > --force-confnew or similar in /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg. No interactive questions was asked during the upgrade. Richard A Nelson a écrit (Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 11:47:29AM -0800) : > Can you mail me more details... there is support in > /etc/mail/sendmail.conf to automagically support the type of queue aging > that you are doing... After a look in the preinst scripts, there is something like : <mesiog> /var/lib/dpkg/info# grep cron.d/sendmail sendmail*preinst sendmail-base.preinst: if [ -f /etc/cron.d/sendmail ]; then sendmail-base.preinst: echo "#preinst" > /etc/cron.d/sendmail; sendmail-bin.preinst: if [ -f /etc/cron.d/sendmail ]; then sendmail-bin.preinst: echo "#preinst" > /etc/cron.d/sendmail; Indeed, in our configuration, the /etc/cron.d/sendmail has been hand edited in spite of the warning : ##### This file is automagically generated -- edit at your own risk For some reasons, the admins didn't configure sendmail "the Debian way" and didn't use the queue aging feature in /etc/mail/sendmail.conf. - is it mandatory to use /etc/mail/sendmail.conf? - is it OK to say "A file in /etc that was overwritten silently is a bug" as this was the case here? - is there a way to manually configure sendmail the classical way without using the Debian configuration wrappers but cleanly against the package upgrade? (no offense, just for people accustomed to other OS like *BSD) Cheers, -- Emmanuel Halbwachs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
