[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#108587: May packages rm -rf subdirectories of /etc/ ?

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.


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

Reply to: