On So, 07 Okt 2012, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> > In case you have time and can easily kick off a new test with these
> > packages, I would be grateful of course.
>
> except for texlive-full (which I skipped), no problems were found on
> various upgrade paths using current sid, wheezy, squeeze packa
On 2012-10-05 11:41, Norbert Preining wrote:
> In case you have time and can easily kick off a new test with these
> packages, I would be grateful of course.
except for texlive-full (which I skipped), no problems were found on
various upgrade paths using current sid, wheezy, squeeze packages.
An
On 2012-10-05 21:26, Frank Kuester wrote:
> I'm not competely sure without checking out older versions, but I
> _think_ that they are conffiles in squeeze, but they were managed by ucf
> in the later versions of TeXLive 2009 (2010?) in unstable and probably
> wheezy.
>
> Therefore one could argue
Norbert Preining writes:
> Maybe one can completely drop the ucf file? Maybe the files were never
> added to the ucf database and this crept in somehow?
I'm not competely sure without checking out older versions, but I
_think_ that they are conffiles in squeeze, but they were managed by ucf
in t
Hi Andreas,
On Di, 02 Okt 2012, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> ACK. Works for me (squeeze->LOCAL distupgrade), dpkg now forgets about
> the obsolete conffiles. No ucf problems noticed ...
I am very grateful, but also very sorry. I have rebuilt another set of
packages, due to a lost removal of conffile
Hi Andreas,
On Di, 02 Okt 2012, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> ACK. Works for me (squeeze->LOCAL distupgrade), dpkg now forgets about
> the obsolete conffiles. No ucf problems noticed ...
Can you please try once more with the packages at
deb http://people.debian.org/~preining/TeX/ unstable/
(s
Hi Andreas,
On Di, 02 Okt 2012, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> ACK. Works for me (squeeze->LOCAL distupgrade), dpkg now forgets about
> the obsolete conffiles. No ucf problems noticed ...
Thanks for testing. Did you use *both* patches or only the one for
tpm2deb.cfg?
Best wishes
Norbert
On 2012-10-02 02:08, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hmm, but I thought that these files are ucf files not conffiles. ANyway.
> So I think first we try to add the rm_conffile lines, can you try
> this patch:
ACK. Works for me (squeeze->LOCAL distupgrade), dpkg now forgets about
the obsolete conffiles.
On Di, 02 Okt 2012, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> That code only cleans up ucf stuff. As ucf is not intended to be used
> with conffiles, this does not affect dpkg's database. The code is
> working, otherwise debsums wouldn't complain about missing files.
Hmm, but I thought that these files are ucf fi
On 2012-10-02 01:36, Norbert Preining wrote:
> The strange things is that there is code in it to do that, look into
> texlive-base.postinst I see:
[...]
> So from my understanding that means that everything is also purged
> from the dpkg conffile database ...
That code only cleans up ucf stuff. As
On So, 30 Sep 2012, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> I'd really like to see this fixed. There are 171 recursive rdepends of
> texlive-base (according to piuparts-report for squeeze2wheezy) that
> cannot be tested with piuparts because of this bug.
>
> If there is a patch to be tested, I can help.
>
Th
Hi,
I'd really like to see this fixed. There are 171 recursive rdepends of
texlive-base (according to piuparts-report for squeeze2wheezy) that
cannot be tested with piuparts because of this bug.
If there is a patch to be tested, I can help.
Andreas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist
Package: texlive-base
Version: 2012.20120611-4
Severity: important
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts
Hi,
during an upgrade test with piuparts (squeeze -> wheezy), I noticed that
there are a few missing conffiles as reported by debsums:
debsums: missing file /etc/texmf/xdvi/XD
13 matches
Mail list logo
