On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I don't think that /etc/shadow qualifies as a configuration file,
either; I would call it variable state information (→ /var/lib), but
it lives in /etc because a) it has to be on the root filesystem, b)
On Sun, 01 May 2011, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I don't think that /etc/shadow qualifies as a configuration file,
either; I would call it variable state information (→ /var/lib), but
it lives in
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
That said, relocating it to outside of /etc is a Major Bad Idea, and I
very strongly recommend against it. Local configuration to move it
somewhere else is already provided, but you just have extreme amount of
application documentation and
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 05:15:09PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Freitag, 29. April 2011, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
Regardless, policy states the following in section 6.8:
5. The conffiles and any backup files (~-files, #*# files, %-files,
.dpkg-{old,new,tmp}, etc.) are removed.
Hi Steve,
On Samstag, 30. April 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
10.7.3: If the existence of a [configuration] file is required for the
package to be sensibly configured it is the responsibility of the package
maintainer to provide maintainer scripts which correctly create, update and
maintain the
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:02:46PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Samstag, 30. April 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
10.7.3: If the existence of a [configuration] file is required for the
package to be sensibly configured it is the responsibility of the package
maintainer to provide maintainer
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
(If one wishes to argue that /etc/sasldb2 is not a configuration file,
then it's also a policy violation for it to be under /etc.)
It's basically similar to /etc/shadow.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 03:49:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
(If one wishes to argue that /etc/sasldb2 is not a configuration file,
then it's also a policy violation for it to be under /etc.)
It's basically similar to /etc/shadow.
I don't think
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I don't think that /etc/shadow qualifies as a configuration file,
either; I would call it variable state information (→ /var/lib), but
it lives in /etc because a) it has to be on the root filesystem, b)
that's where it's always been so moving it
Hi,
On Sonntag, 24. April 2011, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 09:51:17AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Samstag, 23. April 2011, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
This is not a bug.
Yeah, right. It's not a bug because you dont care about policy which says
you must purge
Hi Holger,
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 02:25:35PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Sonntag, 24. April 2011, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
And this one does respect policy. It is only when it cannot obtain an
answer from the admin on the disposition of /etc/sasldb2 that it errs on
the side
reassign 618885 debian-policy
thanks
Hi Roberto, hi policy maintainers!
On Freitag, 29. April 2011, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
Regardless, policy states the following in section 6.8:
5. The conffiles and any backup files (~-files, #*# files, %-files,
.dpkg-{old,new,tmp}, etc.) are removed.
On Samstag, 23. April 2011, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
This is not a bug.
Yeah, right. It's not a bug because you dont care about policy which says you
must purge the package on purge.
I'm glad most of the 18000 source packages respect policy.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 09:51:17AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Samstag, 23. April 2011, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
This is not a bug.
Yeah, right. It's not a bug because you dont care about policy which says you
must purge the package on purge.
Yes well, I'm sure you would appreciate
Package: sasl2-bin
Version: 2.1.23.dfsg1-8
Severity: important
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts piuparts.d.o
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package left unowned files on the
system after purge, which is a violation of policy 6.8 (or 10.8):
15 matches
Mail list logo
