Re: policy suggestion (seeking discussion)
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> wrote:
> Huh? If the maintainer wanted the file to be known to dpkg,
> they could have added a zero byte file to the paclkage (getting it
> listed), and then manipulated it in the post inst. *NO* need to muck
> around in /var/lib/dpkg. The cat idea is a really bad idea.
>
> How come no one pointed this out already?
This only works if the name of the file can be anticipated at package
creation time, and where it's not confusing to do so. But, yes, in that
case it's a much better approach.
Then again, the only case I can think of where this approach doesn't
work very well is magicfilter, and those should probably be treated
as conffiles.
> The reason some packages handle some files entirely in post inst is
> because they do *not* want dpkt to lay its grubby little fingers on
> them.
Of course, this would still be possible.
> Don't even think about changing dpkg internal files using
> anything but dpkg.
dpkg, the package suite, or dpkg the binary executable?
[Even there, until dpkg has a track record of getting the installation
right and not messing up, it's perfectly reasonable for the *system
administrator* to muck with these files. I know we're talking about
package maintainer activities at the moment, but I think this point
has been made incorrectly, too many times.]
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: