Quoting Peter Eisentraut ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Christian Perrier wrote: > > Do we do it silently without prompting? This is, strictly speaking, > > non policy compliant....but who wants a package that will panic after > > an upgrade? > > You might be thinking of conffiles, but smb.conf is not a conffile.
Well, sure, but messing up with it without prior thinking is not something I would do easily..:-) We all know that the smb.conf file is the core of samba, so "philosophically speaking" we should touch it as less as possible. > > I propose the following patch: > > Index: samba-common.postinst > =================================================================== > --- samba-common.postinst (Revision 1121) > +++ samba-common.postinst (Arbeitskopie) > @@ -136,4 +136,8 @@ > > db_stop > > +if [ -n "$2" ] && dpkg --compare-versions "$2" lt 3.0.23b-2; then > + sed -i -e 's/^\([[:space:]]*passdb backend = > [[:alpha:]][[:alpha:]]*\) guest$/\1/' /etc/samba/smb.conf > +fi > + > #DEBHELPER# In first reading, the patch seems fair by me. Maybe handle the case where users could have multiple spaces around the equal sign: sed -i -e 's/^\([[:space:]]*passdb backend[[:space:]]*=[[:space:]]*[[:alpha:]][[:alpha:]]*\) guest$/\1/' /etc/samba/smb.conf > Btw., is there anything wrong with using "sed -i"? The rest of the > postinst seems to go out of its way to handle sed with manual temp files. I don't have any advice here. Not using temp files is cleaner so unless there is a strong requirement for not using "-i", I'd go for it. --
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
