vim-tiny postinst asks about changes to an unmodified /etc/vim/vimrc.tiny file

[Steve Beattie]

Binary package hint: vim

In a test vm that has been upgraded from a default installation of dapper->hardy->intrepid-> jaunty without any modifications (with the exception of the installation of the openssh-server package) via update-manager, on the upgrade from intrepid to jaunty, the vim-tiny upgrade pops a dialog asking about whether /etc/vim/vimrc.tiny should be be kept or updated. The diff looks like:

-set runtimepath=~/.vim,/var/lib/vim/addons,/usr/share/vim/vimfiles,/usr/share/vim/vim71,/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/after,/var/lib/vim/addons/after,~/.vim/after
+set runtimepath=~/.vim,/var/lib/vim/addons,/usr/share/vim/vimfiles,/usr/share/vim/vim72,/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/after,/var/lib/vim/addons/after,~/.vim/after

ProblemType: Bug
Architecture: i386
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.04
Package: vim-tiny 2:7.2.079-1ubuntu5
ProcEnviron:
 PATH=(custom, no user)
 LANG=en_US.UTF-8
 SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: vim
Uname: Linux 2.6.25-2-386 i686

[Michael Lustfield (michaellustfield)]

What's the problem? The path has been updated and this change reflects that. The default (use package maintainers version) will suffice.

[Steve Beattie (sbeattie)]

@Michael, I recognize that the maintainer's version is correct; we have a policy of attempting to minimize the number of unnecessary questions on installation and upgrade. The bug here is that debconf/vim is asking me about whether I wish to keep a version of a config file that it claims that I have locally modified but never touched.

[Michael Lustfield (michaellustfield)]

I've been trying and trying to reproduce this error.
I tried doing an 8.10 install and upgrading to 9.10 as well as upgrading 9.10 from a beta install.

I've also tried a few other things, but nothing is showing this again.

Is there any way you could give me some details to reproduce this error? I'm wondering if someone fixed it already.

[Michael Lustfield (michaellustfield)]

Could you please confirm whether or not this bug is still an issue? I've been looking at the source code some and it appears that an invalid md5sum has been fixed.

[Steve Beattie (sbeattie)]

On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 05:54:40AM -0000, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> Could you please confirm whether or not this bug is still an issue? I've
> been looking at the source code some and it appears that an invalid
> md5sum has been fixed.

Michael, sorry, I haven't had time to reproduce it. Do note that it
occurred in a vm that started from 6.06 install media -> 6.06 + updates ->
8.04 -> 8.10 -> 9.04. I did realize that I added one additional package
over the default, namely vim. That may be the culprit here.

However, (IIRC) I only saw the question asked about the vimrc.tiny file
on the 8.10 -> 9.04 transition.

I do have snapshots of my vm at the various upgrade points, so when I
get a chance, I can examine things at each step of the way. Thanks!

[Michael Lustfield (michaellustfield)]

I seem to remember the idea of the installation of that package having something to do with the problem glancing in and out of my head. I'm going to look into this. I'll probably ignore issues with 8.04 and prior, but I'll going to include this in some test cases and see if I can reproduce it this way.

I do know you're not the first and I'm sure you're not the last. Just probably the only one to have created a bug about it. A good solid chance for some random guy like me to get their feet wet(drenched) with trying to patch an actual bug.

[Michael Lustfield (michaellustfield)]

I've still be unable to recreate the event in multiple situations.

[Michael Lustfield (michaellustfield)]

It appears that this has been fixed in later vim update.