Re: Not just a dpkg/run-parts problem

[Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk>]

I am glad to see this subject raised again.  I raised it
twice before:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2002/debian-policy-200203/msg00036.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2002/debian-policy-200204/msg00132.html
Some discussion followed the second message.
In that message I suggested that the "active" files in a
directory containing file components be those with names that
are legal package names without dots.  "Without dots", because
run-parts excluded filenames with dots at the time.
Now that dots are to be permitted in such filenames we
can simplify the rule to say that the filenames must be
legal package names.  Unfortunately, we are going to have
to make some exceptions to this rule in order to exclude
dpkg backup files (i.e., *.dpkg-* must not be "active").

-- 
Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk>