[arch-general] dovecot.conf kills update (conflicting file)

[Ng Oon-Ee]

On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 23:35 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
> On 09/01/2010 06:08 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
<snip>
> 
> OK, I'm buying it. What you are telling me is that for 1X there was NO 
> dovecot.conf (IIRC it was something like dovecot.conf.example because I compared 
> something to my suse dovecot.conf when I moved to Arch)....AND... you are saying 
> since 1X didn't have one, the fact that 2.0 does somehow causes the 1.x->2.0 
> update to evade (or fall outside of) the way the .pacnew logic works because the 
> 2.0 install doesn't know about 1.x having a dovecot.conf??

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

> 
> That just seems wonky. So for httpd, it has a httpd.conf from the first version, 
> so it doesn't complain when apache is updated or you get a .pacnew.
> 
> OK, then, this 1.2-2.0 transition should be the only dovecot update that craters 
> the update do to the existence of the dovecot.conf file. So when I updae to 2.1, 
> there should be no update killing complaint about the dovecot.conf.
> 
> Right?

Right.
> 
> Just seems weird that any package with a mandatory config would puke when it 
> finds the mandatory config from a prior version actually there.
> 
> So far this dovecot update, *every* Archer that updates will have the update 
> fail do to this problem, but the next update to 2.0-X should be fine, right?

You seem to be quite uninformed about what packaging actually is.
Various statements you make about 'dovecot installer' and 'update
killing complaint' indicate this. Packaging is separate from the
application, and the job done by the package management system is
actually very simple at its core (keep track of files belonging to a
package).

Basically, 'installation' means something very different on a Linux
system than on a Windows system (which is where your comments seem
rooted). If you would take some time to try and understand the various
things pacman does, you'd save yourself and others a lot more time on
the various issues you bring to this list.

Cheers,
Ng Oon-Ee