Russ Allbery wrote: > As co-maintainer of one of the affected packages, I'm quite happy to go > along with the general consensus, since I don't really care. There seemed > to be a dislike of debconf questions in prerm and there was some precedent > for asking this sort of question in postinst, so that's what I've > currently gone with. It's not a great solution, and I'm happy to change > if someone else has a better idea. I don't see any problem with using debconf in the postrm purge in this case. Debconf is designed to support it. You only have to make sure it's installed at that point and fall back to some reasonable behavior in case it's been removed. (Actually, since its priority was recently updated to required, it's by definition something nobody can sanely remove, but I'm not sure how I feel about that yet.) -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature