Comment 10 for bug 1101836

Iain Lane (laney) wrote on the merge proposal page:
> I was kind of hoping you'd get rid of the deletion completely and
> just insert the line to disable if necessary when you detect it
> wasn't there. Couldn't we do that instead?
>
> The deletion is bad because it makes dpkg think that the user
> performed this action when actually he didn't. dpkg then won't
> reinstall this file for you.
>
> We should also be updating im-switch to insert this line in the
> normal way - this postinst change is only supposed to be a failsafe.

Hi Laney,

Personally I wouldn't mind to drop the md5sum check/deletion part. One reason I didn't (so far) was out of respect for possible Debian and Ubuntu policies. But that's probably faulty logic - I guess that adding the disable line doesn't violate any policies more than deleting a file in another package. Maybe less.

I'm also disinclined to differ from the Debian version more than necessary, so I'd prefer a consensus before proposing that change. Hopefully we'll end up with an im-config package that is identical with the Debian one - it's a 3.0 (native) package. On that topic version 0.20 has been released at Debian.

A while ago Osamu mentioned an idea to apply patches conditionally...

As regards updating im-switch... Added an im-switch task as a reminder. OTOH, I know that Aron and Osamu consider im-switch to be 'dead' and a candidate for archive removal. In the light of that, is it really worth it to spend time with SRUing that change?

Osamu and Aron, what do you think?