On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Steve Greenland wrote: > It's already in violation of policy. From section 4.7.3: > > "The other way to do it is to via the maintainer scripts. In this case, > the configuration file must not be listed as a conffile and must not be > part of the package distribution." > [...]
I agree it's already in violation of policy. The problem I see is that the paragraph is worded in positive sense: "This is appropriate if it is possible to distribute a default version that will work for most installations, [...]" Perhaps not everybody reads it as "This is NOT appropriate if it is *not* possible to distribute a default version that will work for most installations". > [...] > Also, at present, all the users of update-mime are in policy violation > (from 4.7.4): > > "The maintainer scripts should not alter the conffile of any package, > including the one the scripts belong to." > > (But submitting a bug against all the "violating" packages is not the > thing to do.) Yes, this is what I told the maintainer. He didn't reply to that. > > If it is obvious for you that this is the right thing to do, then please > > second the proposal. Having something like this written in policy will not > > only help us to convince the maintainer of mime-support that this is > > indeed a bug (currently he has it as a wishlist item), but also will > > help us to prevent similar cases in the future. > > No, I oppose this proposal; It's already in policy. If it needs to be > clarified, then the right place to do it is in 4.7. Ok, if the consensus is that policy does not need clarification, do we agree that bug #34294 is "normal" and not just "wishlist"? It's more than 1 year old. Thanks. -- "261d1609b99b48a9c8d2ed32fbcd7ead" (a truly random sig)
