On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 02:07:35PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 13:46, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I see this as totally bogus. Either the conffile is shared or it isn't.
> > If it's shared then the packages involved know this
> Package foo which eliminates /etc/foo.conf doesn't "know"
> that there is not some other package, bar, which Depends
> on foo and uses /etc/foo.conf .
From policy:
If two or more packages use the same configuration file and it is
reasonable for both to be installed at the same time, one of these
packages must be defined as _owner_ of the configuration file, i.e.,
it will be the package which handles that file as a configuration
file. Other packages that use the configuration file must depend on
the owning package if they require the configuration file to operate.
If the other package will use the configuration file if present, but
is capable of operating without it, no dependency need be declared.
If they don't know, then the maintainers of the packages need to, you
know, exchange emails.
If a package stops providing a config file that another package depends
on, it needs to use a Conflicts: line, or change its name, or otherwise
break the dependency, just as it would for any other feature change
that breaks other packages. If the other package isn't in Debian, well,
tough luck; test first, roll out later.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
Am I getting paid for this?''
Attachment:
pgpk7wcsYIVjo.pgp
Description: PGP signature