On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 12:00:18PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > Yves Arrouye wrote: > > > [ about /etc/mailname ]. > > > But some package should own it yes. > > > > It has never been a requirement that every file in the system > > should be owned in the "dpkg -S" sense by some package. > > However, if a file is deleted that is not owned by any package, then no > package should have a problem with that. I don't think that's the case for > /etc/mailname. I seem to recall having mail sent as 'mjp16@<null>' (yes, > entirely literal string) at one point in the dim past, as a result of not > having an /etc/mailname. > > If a package wants a file, it should either own it or depend on a package > that does. Yes. And is there a good reason for this file to be a special case ? It looks like a conffile to me. Christophe > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > #include <disclaimer.h> > Matthew Palmer > mjp16@ieee.uow.edu.au > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > -- Christophe Barbé <christophe.barbe@ufies.org> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E In a cat's eye, all things belong to cats. --English proverb
Attachment:
pgppZZROPW5KP.pgp
Description: PGP signature