Re: Package maintainer script policy.
On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 07:12:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > It's not an issue of advantage IMO. It's an issue of is there any
> > reason that it's Wrong to use an ELF binary as a postinst. There's a
> > danger to it, but the same danger exists in packages which call some
> > form of configuration binaries.
>
> There's also the simple point that policy says it should be a script.
>
> And it's not a script.
>
> And there's no reason for it to not be a script.
In fact, there is a technical reason to avoid executables in packaging
scripts.
Installing a package with "dpkg --root=" would fail across architectures
(yeah, I do this for Debian/Hurd). But in this special case this would be
only annoying.
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: