Re: Bug#189566: amavisd-new: bad interaction with package amavis-ng
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003, Brian May wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 08:51:51PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> > Share an initscript between them, if that's possible?
>
> No, that would cause more problems trying to rename
> the existing amavisd-new conffile.
Agreed. This is not something we should be doing at all.
This is actually a big, ugly mess, for which the only sane alternative
is to have a package-specific binary for amavisd-new or amavis-ng (actually,
if we're going to do it the proper and fix-the-damn-thing-once-and-for-all
way, ALL amavis packages).
It is also a damn hole in Debian policy. That one I will propose a fix
to: scripts that are conffiles MUST test if the package is in the installed
state, and that test MUST either be done by checking for the presence of a
*file* (and no other filesystem object!) that is specific for that package
only in the entire distribution, or by querying the packaging system.
We really should have a very fast script to query if a package is installed.
> lrwxrwxrwx root/root 0 2003-04-06 05:15:36 ./usr/sbin/amavisd -> ../bin/amavis
>
> Why is this symlink required?
>
> Why does amavis-ng need to have two names?
Looks like amavis-ng has both the amavis client and server functionalities
built-in the same executable. If it "decides" what it should be doing based
on its calling name...
Anyway, yuck. I am glad I am using and co-maintaining amavisd-new now :)
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: