On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 08:52:34PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: > The second is whether it's acceptable for a Debian package to *require* a > specific username. There seems to be at least an implication that if the > namespace clash potential is eliminated or significantly reduced, that this > would remove the need for supporting configurability of the username used by > a package or set of packages. I'm very concerned about this, since I believe > that no matter how well we solve the namespace potential collision problem, > there will always be users of our packages in large installation environments > who have already made decisions about their username namespace that they want > Debian systems to be able to "fit in to" without requiring rework or > recompilation of packages.
CAN OF WORMS DANGER AHEAD! BEWARE! The user name is likely to be spread out through build-time, installation-time and run-time scripts in the package. Since one cannot easily build includes in maintainer scripts, one would probably need to _generate_ the maintainer scripts at package build time, introducing gazillions of "interesting" bugs. Please, don't open that can of worms, and settle on a naming policy which minimizes impact, such as the "Debian-" prefix that Debian's default MTA has been using for years. I am sure that we'd know by now if this had made trouble anywhere. Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
