Debian Bug report logs - #140927
Configuration files should be preserved on upgrades.

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Configuration files should be preserved on upgrades.

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 17:16:03 +0200 (CEST)

Package: tetex-bin
Version: 1.0.7+20011202-5.1
Severity: serious

What tetex-bin.postinst does, namely:

if [ -e $FMTCNF -a ! -e $FMTCNF.dpkg-old ]
then
    echo "$FMTCNF is now not a conffile and should be generated by $UPDFMT."
    echo "Old $FMTCNF would be moved as $FMTCNF.dpkg-old"
    mv $FMTCNF $FMTCNF.dpkg-old
fi
if [ -x $UPDFMT ] ; then
$UPDFMT -v
fi

is incompatible with Debian policy when it says "local changes to
configuration files *must* be preserved during a package upgrade".

Since /etc/texmf/fmt.d/00tetex.cnf has now what fmtutil.cnf used to
have, I suggest that in an upgrade from potato, /etc/texmf/fmtutil.cnf
is not renamed but instead it's copied to /etc/texmf/fmt.d/00tetex.cnf
before fmtutil is called. This would preserve user changes, at least.

[ Sorry, I don't see an easy workaround for mktex.cnf ].

Message #10 received at 140927@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>

To: sanvila@unex.es, 140927@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#140927: Configuration files should be preserved on upgrades.

Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 08:55:15 +0900

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>
Subject: Bug#140927: Configuration files should be preserved on upgrades.
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 17:16:03 +0200 (CEST)

> What tetex-bin.postinst does, namely:
> 
> if [ -e $FMTCNF -a ! -e $FMTCNF.dpkg-old ]
> then
>     echo "$FMTCNF is now not a conffile and should be generated by $UPDFMT."
>     echo "Old $FMTCNF would be moved as $FMTCNF.dpkg-old"
>     mv $FMTCNF $FMTCNF.dpkg-old
> fi
> if [ -x $UPDFMT ] ; then
> $UPDFMT -v
> fi
> 
> is incompatible with Debian policy when it says "local changes to
> configuration files *must* be preserved during a package upgrade".
> 
> Since /etc/texmf/fmt.d/00tetex.cnf has now what fmtutil.cnf used to
> have, I suggest that in an upgrade from potato, /etc/texmf/fmtutil.cnf
> is not renamed but instead it's copied to /etc/texmf/fmt.d/00tetex.cnf
> before fmtutil is called. This would preserve user changes, at least.

I would like to say No.  You said "/etc/texmf/fmt.d/00tetex.cnf
has now what fmtutil.cnf used to have" but it is not true.

Now tetex-bin changed the basic structure of fmtutil.cnf

- /etc/texmf/fmt.d/00tetex.cnf should be genuine (or at least
it is strongly recommended!)

- if a user wants to change it he/she should create 
/etc/texmf/fmt.d/99private.cnf or something and run
update-fmtutil (only once).

Under this situation, tetex-bin or any other packages
which support update-fmtutil (e.g. jadetex) never asks 
a user whether to replace /etc/texmf/fmt.d/00tetex.cnf 
or not at upgrading and a user has the up-to-date fmtutil.cnf 
any time in the future.

If /etc/texmf/fmtutil.cnf was copied to /etc/texmf/fmt.d/00tetex.cnf
and it contained some private modifications, it might cause
possible trouble and a user would be always asked whether to 
replace /etc/texmf/fmt.d/00tetex.cnf or not at every upgrading.

So I guess it is much better to save the old contents
as fmtutil.cnf.dpkg-old because a user would have enough data
to create /etc/texmf/fmt.d/99private.cnf in it.

Best regards,		     2002.4.3

-- 
 Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
 Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
 Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.

Message #15 received at 140927@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>

Cc: 140927@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#140927: Configuration files should be preserved on upgrades.

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:39:24 +0200 (CEST)

On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:

> I would like to say No.  You said "/etc/texmf/fmt.d/00tetex.cnf
> has now what fmtutil.cnf used to have" but it is not true.
>
> Now tetex-bin changed the basic structure of fmtutil.cnf
>
> - /etc/texmf/fmt.d/00tetex.cnf should be genuine (or at least
> it is strongly recommended!)
>
> - if a user wants to change it he/she should create
> /etc/texmf/fmt.d/99private.cnf or something and run
> update-fmtutil (only once).

It is really possible to disable creation of unwanted formats
without touching 00tetex.cnf at all? How do I do that?

I tried man update-fmtutil but there is not a manpage.

> [...]
> If /etc/texmf/fmtutil.cnf was copied to /etc/texmf/fmt.d/00tetex.cnf
> and it contained some private modifications, it might cause
> possible trouble and a user would be always asked whether to
> replace /etc/texmf/fmt.d/00tetex.cnf or not at every upgrading.

but at least the changes from potato would be preserved, which is one
of requirements of policy.

Message #20 received at 140927@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>

To: sanvila@unex.es

Cc: 140927@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#140927: Configuration files should be preserved on upgrades.

Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 08:43:19 +0900 (JST)

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>
Subject: Re: Bug#140927: Configuration files should be preserved on upgrades.
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:39:24 +0200 (CEST)

> It is really possible to disable creation of unwanted formats
> without touching 00tetex.cnf at all? How do I do that?

No, it is not possible, perhaps.  But in that case, 
the situation would be same in both old scheme or new.
A user will be asked whether to replace a conffile or 
not at upgrading.

> I tried man update-fmtutil but there is not a manpage.

Yes, I know.  I might write a brief man but my English
is, as you can find it already, such ....

Santiago, I believe you can understand what update-fmtutil
does if you look into it and if you (or anyone else) are 
kind enough to write a manpage of it, I will adopt it 
immediately with pleasure.

> but at least the changes from potato would be preserved, which is one
> of requirements of policy.

Yes to some extent if a scheme of conffiles is not changed 
but if a scheme is changed so much how one can preserve 
the changes completely?

If you really believe it is much better to copy
old fmtutil.cnf to 00tetex.cnf I might consider it 
but I'm afraid it might cause some inconsistency with 
new scheme (e.g. duplicated settings for jadetex etc.).

Please think of the advantages and drawbacks of the new 
scheme and of the old scheme.

Best regards,			2002.4.4

-- 
 Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
 Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
 Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima

Message #25 received at 140927@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>

Cc: 140927@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#140927: Configuration files should be preserved on upgrades.

Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:14:22 +0200 (CEST)

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:

> From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>
> Subject: Re: Bug#140927: Configuration files should be preserved on upgrades.
> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:39:24 +0200 (CEST)
>
> > It is really possible to disable creation of unwanted formats
> > without touching 00tetex.cnf at all? How do I do that?
>
> No, it is not possible, perhaps.  But in that case,
> the situation would be same in both old scheme or new.
> A user will be asked whether to replace a conffile or
> not at upgrading.

Exactly. I want to be asked. I do not want my changes to be lost.
Policy says local changes must be preserved. I understand this may be
difficult for texmf.d but for fmt.d it should be easy enough.

Message #30 received at 140927@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>

To: sanvila@unex.es

Cc: 140927@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#140927: Configuration files should be preserved on upgrades.

Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 13:04:48 +0900 (JST)

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>
Subject: Re: Bug#140927: Configuration files should be preserved on upgrades.
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:14:22 +0200 (CEST)

> > A user will be asked whether to replace a conffile or
> > not at upgrading.
> 
> Exactly. I want to be asked. I do not want my changes to be lost.
> Policy says local changes must be preserved. 

I understand that you want to be asked.  But please
consider this as a generic issue.

> I understand this may be
> difficult for texmf.d but for fmt.d it should be easy enough.

I guess you said "for fmt.d it should be easy enough"
from only the technical point of view.  Yes it would
be easy to copy old fmtutil.cnf to 00tetex.cnf.

But the new scheme expects/assumes to add extra settings
through update-fmtutil from fmt.d/*.cnf so, except the
case of removing unwanted formats as you mentioned already, 
it will be much better to have a genuine 00tetex.cnf at first 
than to have a (possibly) modified 00tetex.cnf from the beginning 
in general.

Under these conditions, I can not say so simply "for fmt.d 
it should be easy enough".

I still doubt that it is really good to copy old fmtutil.cnf 
to 00tetex.cnf

Best regards,			2002.4.5

-- 
 Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
 Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
 Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima

Message #35 received at 140927@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>

To: 140927@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: set severity wishlist

Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:00:17 +0900 (JST)

severity 140927 wishlist
thanks

I believe I got a consensus that this was not a bug
or, at least, a bug of severity wishlist.

Best regards,			 2002.4.9

-- 
 Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
 Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
 Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima

Message #42 received at 140927-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org>

To: 140927-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#140927: fixed in tetex-bin 1.0.7+20021025-6

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:02:18 -0500

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
tetex-bin, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

libkpathsea-dev_1.0.7+20021025-6_i386.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-bin/libkpathsea-dev_1.0.7+20021025-6_i386.deb
libkpathsea3_1.0.7+20021025-6_i386.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-bin/libkpathsea3_1.0.7+20021025-6_i386.deb
tetex-bin_1.0.7+20021025-6.diff.gz
  to pool/main/t/tetex-bin/tetex-bin_1.0.7+20021025-6.diff.gz
tetex-bin_1.0.7+20021025-6.dsc
  to pool/main/t/tetex-bin/tetex-bin_1.0.7+20021025-6.dsc
tetex-bin_1.0.7+20021025-6_i386.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-bin/tetex-bin_1.0.7+20021025-6_i386.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 140927@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-bin 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: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 14:05:36 +0900
Source: tetex-bin
Binary: libkpathsea3 tetex-bin libkpathsea-dev
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.0.7+20021025-6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org>
Description: 
 libkpathsea-dev - kpathsea.a and include files for teTeX
 libkpathsea3 - shared libkpathsea for teTeX
 tetex-bin  - teTeX binary files
Closes: 140927 150511 169825 170963 1728419
Changes: 
 tetex-bin (1.0.7+20021025-6) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Installed texmf/fontname directory which was migrated from tetex-base
     with the upstream change.  [kohda]  (Closes: #1728419)
   * Updated 95NonPath.cnf and fixed 45TeXinputs.cnf  [kohda]
   * Modified postinst so that if it failed to generate some fmt files,
     now it would try to regenerate them once again.  [kohda]
     (Closes: #170963, #169825)
   * Explained how to preserve private modifications with the new scheme
     in README.Debian  [kohda]  (Closes: #150511, #140927)
   * Modified fmtutil so it now reported the names of installed FMTs.  [kohda]
Files: 
 f24626437f9aa94ed2961cd440e453e8 959 tex optional tetex-bin_1.0.7+20021025-6.dsc
 29330b3369b920bfb4b5f895dfafe30d 46919 tex optional tetex-bin_1.0.7+20021025-6.diff.gz
 296384fc999ca65d77c0e1b56343ce13 2979522 tex optional tetex-bin_1.0.7+20021025-6_i386.deb
 3886008ae8066b03f418dd437259fab1 43302 libs optional libkpathsea3_1.0.7+20021025-6_i386.deb
 55a028a653054d850279e4f32baa45a5 62668 devel optional libkpathsea-dev_1.0.7+20021025-6_i386.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9/uNn1IXdL1v6kOwRAtAOAJ9NH5DyTRjszmTwLkXB/4qwRkFsIgCghCx8
ACTCzXI5h6+daZC8N/1hdIc=
=m3qu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.