Debian Bug report logs - #285390
udev: Prompts for conffile which I have not modified

Toggle useless messages

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

From: Justin Pryzby <justinpryzby@users.sf.net>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: udev: Prompts for conffile which I have not modified

Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:13:41 -0500

Package: udev
Version: 0.048-2
Severity: normal

--- /etc/udev/scripts/ide-devfs.sh      2004-10-22 10:49:39.000000000
-0400
+++ /etc/udev/scripts/ide-devfs.sh.dpkg-new     2004-12-09
13:30:37.000000000 -0500

Although I have not modified this conffile, I am prompted during an
upgrade,  undermining the whole point of using a conffile.

Preparing to replace udev 0.042-1 (using .../archives/udev_0.048-2_i386.deb) ...

The 3 changes made are of the form:
MEDIA=`cat /proc/ide/${1}/media`
...
-echo ide/host${HOST}/bus${BUS}/target${TARGET}/lun0/cd cdroms/cdrom`get_dev_number $1 cdrom`
+echo ide/host${HOST}/bus${BUS}/target${TARGET}/lun0/cd cdroms/cdrom`get_dev_number $1 cdrom` ${MEDIA}


-- Package-specific info:
-- /etc/udev/rules.d/:
/etc/udev/rules.d/:
total 0
lrwxr-xr-x  1 root root 13 Nov  2 09:37 udev.rules -> ../udev.rules

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.9Y
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)

Versions of packages udev depends on:
ii  debconf [debconf-2.0]    1.4.30.10       Debian configuration management sy
ii  hotplug                  0.0.20040329-16 Linux Hotplug Scripts
ii  initscripts              2.86-5          Standard scripts needed for bootin
ii  libc6                    2.3.2.ds1-18    GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  makedev                  2.3.1-75        Creates device files in /dev

-- debconf information:
  udev/devfs-warning:
* udev/reboot-warning:

Message #10 received at 285390@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)

To: Justin Pryzby <justinpryzby@users.sf.net>, 285390@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#285390: udev: Prompts for conffile which I have not modified

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:26:26 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

tag 285390 wontfix
thanks

On Dec 13, Justin Pryzby <justinpryzby@users.sf.net> wrote:

> Although I have not modified this conffile, I am prompted during an
> upgrade,  undermining the whole point of using a conffile.
The package does not modify the file, probably the warning is caused the
code which handles upgrades from versions < 0.046-4, which needs to
rename the script. If you are upgrading from a very old release (and you
are) then looks like that you will get the warning because the script
was actually different.

I will keep the bug open for a while but do not expect any action from
me, even if there is a solution to this problem it's probably complex
enough that implementing it is not worth the effort (but still, I'd like
to know if there is one).

-- 
ciao, |
Marco | [9746 inUqL4DiLyf.M]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #17 received at 285390-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Justin Pryzby <justinpryzby@users.sourceforge.net>

To: "Marco d'Itri" <md@Linux.IT>

Cc: 285390-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#285390: udev: Prompts for conffile which I have not modified

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:23:09 -0500

I believe that's what ucf is for, though I've not played with it.

On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 03:26:26PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> tag 285390 wontfix
> thanks
> 
> On Dec 13, Justin Pryzby <justinpryzby@users.sf.net> wrote:
> 
> > Although I have not modified this conffile, I am prompted during an
> > upgrade,  undermining the whole point of using a conffile.
> The package does not modify the file, probably the warning is caused the
> code which handles upgrades from versions < 0.046-4, which needs to
> rename the script. If you are upgrading from a very old release (and you
> are) then looks like that you will get the warning because the script
> was actually different.
> 
> I will keep the bug open for a while but do not expect any action from
> me, even if there is a solution to this problem it's probably complex
> enough that implementing it is not worth the effort (but still, I'd like
> to know if there is one).

Message #22 received at 285390@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Hood <jdthood@aglu.demon.nl>

To: 285390@bugs.debian.org

Subject: How to rename conffiles

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:35:35 +0100

> I will keep the bug open for a while but do not expect any action from
> me, even if there is a solution to this problem it's probably complex
> enough that implementing it is not worth the effort (but still, I'd like
> to know if there is one).


The behavior one wants is:

    if original file was modified
    then move it to new location # dpkg will prompt the user when it tries to install the new conffile
    else just delete it # dpkg will install the new conffile without prompting
    fi

Do it in the preinst:

case "$1" in
upgrade)
        if [ -f /etc/blah/oldconf ] ; then
                case "$(md5sum /etc/blah/oldconf | sed -e 's/[[:space:]].*$//')" in
                94c8c671fce0969e67bc21bd26b47e6c|\
                fb35106269b429cd8bd6bf8f5a795f6f|\
                dfcbadd99c3064775817484bf0b653e2)
                        # It's a released version -- don't move it
                        :
                        ;;
                *)
                        # It was changed by user
                         if [ -f /etc/blah/newconf ] ; then
                                mv -f /etc/blah/oldconf /etc/blah/oldconf.dpkg-old
                        else
                                # Copy to new location
                                # dpkg will compare with new file and prompt the user
                                cp -p /etc/blah/oldconf /etc/blah/newconf
                                # N.B. Delete /etc/blah/oldconf in postinst
                        fi
                        ;;
                esac
        fi


-- 
Thomas Hood <jdthood@aglu.demon.nl>

Message #31 received at 285390@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Pitt <mpitt@debian.org>

To: 285390@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Ubuntu fix

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:49:40 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Marco!

We had to fix this uneccessary dpkg question for Ubuntu anyway, so
here is the debdiff:

  http://patches.ubuntu.com/patches/udev.285390.diff

Please consider adopting it. It's not a complex solution and helps to
reduce unnecessary upgrading questions.

Thanks,

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt                       http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer            http://www.ubuntulinux.org
Debian GNU/Linux Developer       http://www.debian.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #36 received at 285390@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>

To: 285390@bugs.debian.org

Subject: ubuntu udev patch

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:48:19 -0500

I'll bitch pre-emptively that
+    if [ ! -f "$OLDCONFFILE" -o -f "$NEWCONFFILE" ]; then

in the patch should be

+    if [ ! -f "$OLDCONFFILE" ] || [ -f "$NEWCONFFILE" ]; then

Message #41 received at 285390@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)

To: Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>, 285390@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#285390: ubuntu udev patch

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:10:49 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mar 22, Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> wrote:

> I'll bitch pre-emptively that
> +    if [ ! -f "$OLDCONFFILE" -o -f "$NEWCONFFILE" ]; then
> 
> in the patch should be
> 
> +    if [ ! -f "$OLDCONFFILE" ] || [ -f "$NEWCONFFILE" ]; then

I do not care at all about posh, sorry.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #46 received at 285390@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>

To: 285390@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#285390: ubuntu udev patch

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:55:43 -0500

> I do not care at all about posh, sorry.

You've made that abundantly clear.

Message #51 received at 285390@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Justin Pryzby <justinpryzby@users.sourceforge.net>

To: <285390@bugs.debian.org>, <157871@bugs.debian.org>

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:55:10 -0500

You might find this inspiring:
http://www.dpkg.org/ConffileHandling

Message #56 received at 285390-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)

To: 285390-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#285390: udev: Prompts for conffile which I have not modified

Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 19:27:40 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Dec 13, Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> wrote:

> The package does not modify the file, probably the warning is caused the
> code which handles upgrades from versions < 0.046-4, which needs to
Closing.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.