On 2013-01-08 01:14, Mike Gabriel wrote: > Hi Niels, > > thanks for taking your time to look at this issue more deeply. Your > extra info is very valuable to me and the D-E team. >
You are welcome. :) > On Mo 07 Jan 2013 14:34:17 CET Niels Thykier wrote: > >> On 2013-01-07 12:12, Holger Levsen wrote: >>> Hi Mike, >>> > >> [...] > >> Mind you, I am a bit out of my conform zone on what this postinst script >> is doing, so I am not sure I'd ACK it on my own (even with the parts >> above fixed). Particularly, Julien already suggested that he found the >> changes to invasive[3]. > > I am happy to follow any of your suggestions, esp. because I would call > my self a still-learning-Perl-person. The big question is, if a change > like you propose might make a difference for the transition of an > adapted-like-you-suggest package to wheezy. If there is a yes to that > question, I will put fixing the package on prio-A. > Personally, I would flat out reject the changes as long as they ignore errors[1]. So that sense, I suppose it will make a difference. Mind you, even with the proper error handling I am not sure I would unblock the package. Partly because I am not confident with particular things the script is doing and partly because of Julien's comment on the changes being invasive. But if nothing else, I believe you would be fixing a latent RC bug in experimental. > Thanks+Greets, > Mike > > ~Niels [1] I see it as a violation of Policy ยง6.1: """It is important that they [maintainer scripts] exit with a non-zero status if there is an error, so that the package management system can stop its processing.""" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
