Bug#175783: marked as done (tetex-base: "Remove old conffiles" question is unhelpfully terse)
Your message dated Sat, 08 Feb 2003 03:32:53 -0500
with message-id <E18hQPt-0007ND-00@auric.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#175457: fixed in tetex-base 2.0-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Jan 2003 02:33:33 +0000
>From cjwatson@debian.org Tue Jan 07 20:33:33 2003
Return-path: <cjwatson@debian.org>
Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18W629-0007wu-00; Tue, 07 Jan 2003 20:33:33 -0600
Received: from host217-36-6-112.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.36.6.112] helo=riva.lab.dotat.at)
by protactinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #16)
id 18W61G-0001FQ-00
for submit@bugs.debian.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2003 02:32:38 +0000
Received: from arborlon.lab.dotat.at ([192.168.124.34] ident=mail)
by riva.lab.dotat.at with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
for submit@bugs.debian.org
id 18W61F-00045d-00; Wed, 08 Jan 2003 02:32:37 +0000
Received: from cjwatson by arborlon.lab.dotat.at with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 18W5xi-0001av-00
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Wed, 08 Jan 2003 02:28:58 +0000
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 02:28:58 +0000
From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: tetex-base: "Remove old conffiles" question is unhelpfully terse
Message-ID: <20030108022854.GA6119@arborlon>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Reportbug-Version: 2.10
Sender: Colin Watson <cjwatson@arborlon>
X-BadReturnPath: cjwatson@riva.lab.dotat.at rewritten as cjwatson@debian.org
using "From" header
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.1 required=5.0
tests=SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_05_08,USER_AGENT,
USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Package: tetex-base
Version: 1.0.2+20021025-5
Severity: normal
tetex-base asks me, via debconf:
Remove old conffiles?
Old conffiles which tetex-base shipped out were found. It is strongly
recommended to remove these files right now!
To an even vaguely paranoid admin, this is unnerving; what files it
going to remove (or how can I find out)? Why is it so important? Is it a
security risk, will it break the tetex installation, or is it just
cosmetic?
Of course, I can find out the answer to the first question by reading
/var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-base.config (although it's not quite so
convenient to find tetex-base.config while this question is being asked
during preconfiguration unless you're familiar with debconf internals;
offhand I think it's /var/lib/dpkg/tmp.ci/config, although I wouldn't
like to bet on it and certainly wouldn't want to include such an
implementation detail in documentation). However, please consider
clarifying this anyway, together with the other points above: at the
moment it amounts to "May I remove some files from your system
(yes/no)?".
I realize it may be difficult to fit the list of removed conffiles
sensibly into the format of a debconf question. I trust that you can
figure something out. :-)
Thanks,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 175457-close) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Feb 2003 08:38:17 +0000
>From katie@auric.debian.org Sat Feb 08 02:38:17 2003
Return-path: <katie@auric.debian.org>
Received: from auric.debian.org [206.246.226.45] (mail)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18hQV6-0006g3-00; Sat, 08 Feb 2003 02:38:16 -0600
Received: from katie by auric.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 18hQPt-0007ND-00; Sat, 08 Feb 2003 03:32:53 -0500
From: Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org>
To: 175457-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.31 $
Subject: Bug#175457: fixed in tetex-base 2.0-1
Message-Id: <E18hQPt-0007ND-00@auric.debian.org>
Sender: Archive Administrator <katie@auric.debian.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 03:32:53 -0500
Delivered-To: 175457-close@bugs.debian.org
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
tetex-base, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
tetex-base_2.0-1.diff.gz
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0-1.diff.gz
tetex-base_2.0-1.dsc
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0-1.dsc
tetex-base_2.0-1_all.deb
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0-1_all.deb
tetex-base_2.0.orig.tar.gz
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.orig.tar.gz
tetex-doc_2.0-1_all.deb
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-doc_2.0-1_all.deb
tetex-extra_2.0-1_all.deb
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-extra_2.0-1_all.deb
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to 175457@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org> (supplier of updated tetex-base package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 17:36:09 +0900
Source: tetex-base
Binary: tetex-extra tetex-doc tetex-base
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.0-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org>
Description:
tetex-base - basic teTeX library files
tetex-doc - teTeX documentation
tetex-extra - extra teTeX library files
Closes: 175457 177639
Changes:
tetex-base (2.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
.
* New Upstream Release.
- Included dvipdmf stuffs.
- bsr-interpolated.map and bsr.map were moved from bluesky to tetex, and
lucida map files were added so we modified setup-conffiles. [kohda]
- config.ps was fixed in the upstream so we removed the patch.
- xdvi.cfg was removed and moved tetex-bin again.
* rules by cmc and updated. [kohda] (Closes: #177639)
* Used updmap again in postinst, but experimental yet. [kohda]
* Removed debian/conffiles, debian/tetex-extra.conffiles because we already
setted DH_COMPAT=3 in rules. [kohda]
* Refined config and templates. [kohda] (Closes: #175457)
Files:
0158da28e131d1ca19106d5310b76abf 786 tex optional tetex-base_2.0-1.dsc
df4c48869245635cbbcf9568e598bb10 51679566 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.orig.tar.gz
d9ae17a8637190bb84ca3bf497f6a8b9 38931 tex optional tetex-base_2.0-1.diff.gz
c784e075ce99658aa41ceb8795427be3 13904928 tex optional tetex-base_2.0-1_all.deb
13dcee70f5fd9e355c325dcc314b8c7c 10337570 tex optional tetex-extra_2.0-1_all.deb
5835ca248c3f881acac154dcb24cc720 27216838 tex optional tetex-doc_2.0-1_all.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+Q3Cf1IXdL1v6kOwRAv4sAJ0ZA60Ti941X5m2KX2NUNzI3fTMCQCfZVR+
Q3/kIKTHgUPEOJbOZOyDna0=
=mAei
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: