Hi, Vincent Lefevre wrote (05 Sep 2012 08:59:59 GMT) : > No, the fact that a symlink change (whether this is done manually or > by a configuration via debconf) is not preserved after upgrade is > not regarded as a RC bug. Quoting Steve Langasek[*]:
> Debian policy requires that local changes to configuration files > are retained. This generally implies that packages should try to > preserve configuration values represented in other ways (such as > symlinks), but this is not a requirement of policy. And as I've > pointed out, there are significant high-profile examples where > admin changes to symlinks are not preserved. > > [*] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=412159#68 Policy 10.7.1 defines "configuration file" as "A file that affects the operation of a program, or provides site- or host-specific information, or otherwise customizes the behavior of a program". I may be overlooking a part of Steve's analysis here, but I fail to see why a symlink would not fall into this category: the policy does not specify that a configuration file must be a regular file. However, yes, there are significant high-profiles examples of the contrary, that we've been living with quite well, so I guess the policy should be changed (or clarify, depends how one understands the current wording) to more clearly match the actual practice outlined by Steve in this quote of his. If this was discussed elsewhere, and a decision was made, please point me to it. I'm curious. Anyhow, as far as this specific bug is concerned, I concur with Andreas Metzler's analysis (non-buggy, but undocumented behaviour), and I will review his patch right away. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
