On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 05:39 -0400, Baho Utot wrote: > On 09/01/2010 07:08 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:58 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote: > >> On 09/01/2010 08:59 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 07:44 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote: > >>> <snip> > >>>> but in any event, related or not, > >>>> dovecot should update without failing due to the existing dovecot.conf > >>> <snip> > >>> > >>> The dovecot.conf file was created by you previously, hence why the > >>> update is failing. The new dovecot package provides dovecot.conf (I > >>> think because upstream provides it). > >>> > >>> Pacman gives an error in situations like this, as it well should, since > >>> I doubt anybody wants their configs wiped out. As such I don't think > >>> this is even a bug. > >>> > >>> > >> ? Que? > >> > >> I thought that was what was supposed to be handled by .pacnew and .pacsav. Of > >> course there will be a dovecot.conf. (dovecot won't work without it) Everybody > >> knows that. Why should/would an Arch update not be able to handle that simple fact. > >> > >> You know more than I, but to me, it looks like a bug that Arch needs to be > >> smart enough to fix. I propose that whoever maintains dovecot for Arch fix the > >> install to install the new dovecot.conf and dovecot.conf.pacnew. That way we > >> don't blow up a 288 package update just because the dovecot installer isn't > >> smart enough to know that if dovecot is already installed -> expect a dovecot.conf. > >> > >> Do you disagree with that? If so, why? > >> > > Files on the filesystem either belong to a package or they don't. > > dovecot.conf didn't, because the older dovecot packages (1.2-x) did not > > have the /etc/dovecot.conf file. You created that file yourself when you > > set dovecot up the first time. > > > > Now, the dovecot 2.0+ packages DO have that file. What else do you want > > pacman to do when the following is true:- > > 1. Package A did not use to own file B. > > 2. Package A now owns file B. > > 3. File B already exists on the filesystem. > > > > The file may not be a conf file. It may be a binary, a library etc. It > > may not even be intended for package A, but may belong, say, to package > > C. In any case, since YOU created it, you're responsible for deciding > > what you want to do with it. > > > > Pacman helps you manage your system, it doesn't (and shouldn't) try to > > make assumptions about stuff like this, because that's your job. You > > know your system better than anyone else (ideally). > > > > And your assertion about 'blowing up a 288 package update' is nonsense, > > by the time you reach this error the downloads are done (so they don't > > have to be repeated) and no files have actually yet been installed. > > Re-run pacman -Su after fixing the problem and everything just installs > > as it should have. > > > > Finally, there is no 'dovecot installer'. It is a package, a compressed > > collection of files. dovecot.install is mainly for post-install messages > > or perhaps some system configuration using common tools. Not to create > > configuration files from scratch (that's your job). > > > > The proper thing to do is to rename /etc/dovecot.conf to > dovecot.conf.orginal, do the update and then merge/restore the > dovecot.conf.orginal to/into dovecot.conf. > > Then everyone is happy. > Actually, the proper thing to do is stated in the post-install message. The behaviour you're talking about is not done by pacman, because with dovecot 1.2 dovecot.conf was not part of the dovecot package, as already mentioned.
