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

[Ng Oon-Ee]

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.