Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#2869 - lirc overwrites /etc/lircd.conf
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Sasha (kleptophobiac) - Friday, 24 June 2005, 16:31 GMT
Last edited by Dale Blount (dale) - Saturday, 25 June 2005, 13:44 GMT
Opened by Sasha (kleptophobiac) - Friday, 24 June 2005, 16:31 GMT
Last edited by Dale Blount (dale) - Saturday, 25 June 2005, 13:44 GMT
|
DetailsThe lircd.conf file stores all the remote codes for a remote control. Whenever upgrading or installing lirc, it automatically overwrites this file. The file should be added to the backup line.
It really ought to be extracted as /etc/lircd.conf.pacnew, as the old file is far more likely to be correct. I assign this as a high level severity because it overwrites user settings irrevocably. |
This task depends upon
Looking for a clever install script way to save the existing configurations BEFORE the upgrade. I think I can pull that off using pre_upgrade and triggering off the new version. Look for action on this soon.
- P
So how is this happening? Have you got a particular version of the lirc package you can reference so I can be sure we've got this handled?
[root@mythbe01 sandbox]# tar -xzf lirc-0.7.1-1.pkg.tar.gz
[root@mythbe01 sandbox]# ls
etc lib lirc-0.7.1-1.pkg.tar.gz usr
[root@mythbe01 sandbox]# cd etc
[root@mythbe01 etc]# ls
lircd.conf rc.d
[root@mythbe01 etc]#
My md5sum is 688f3d85d8569d7638c0bdd70c254a4d
I have no /etc/lirc.conf.
I verified that the md5sum above matches the (lingering) one on the main download site, too. Is it possible this was a customized version of the package?
If still puzzled, can you attach it to this bug?
I hope this bug doesn't get any weirder before we figure it out. ;)
I'll rerun abs and try again when I can get to my box again (I think my web access at home is down, so I can't ssh in).
Meanwhile, I'm working on getting the new version to compile, but it's been more than a little bit tricky, so it's slow in coming. But hopefully I'll get it done soon.