[maemo-developers] Subtle difference in behavior of installation packages
From: Pali Rohár pali.rohar at gmail.comDate: Wed Feb 8 22:15:12 EET 2012
- Previous message: Subtle difference in behavior of installation packages
- Next message: Subtle difference in behavior of installation packages
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Wednesday 08 February 2012 21:04:26 gregor herrmann wrote: > On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:21:16 +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > I can install and uninstall the file just fine using the debian package > > > I've constructed locally. When installing the app from the Extras-Devel > > > repository, however, the application manager can place the file into > > > /etc/sudoers.d, but seems unable to remove it when uninstalling. > > > > Try to run apt-get remove <package> in xterm. This is what application > > manager doing... Also see error in application manager log. > > apt-get remove without --purge won't remove conffiles, which would > explain why /etc/sudoers.d/foo is still there ... > > And that's on purpose at least in Debian. If HAM can't be told to > purge a package there's not much that can be done (short of using > brute force in the postrm maintainer script. Ehh, this sounds ugly.). > > > Cheers, > gregor You can create sudoers.d file in postinst file and remove it in postrm. echo "..." > /etc/sudoers.d/... Or you can force debhelper to not add that sudoers file to conffiles. -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/attachments/20120208/476afef8/attachment.pgp>
- Previous message: Subtle difference in behavior of installation packages
- Next message: Subtle difference in behavior of installation packages
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]