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

Re: /etc/shells management

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 11:11:34 +0200, Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> said: 
>> Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote: [...]
>>> The fact that a non-version-number string literal with shell
>>> redirection operators in it was a valid value of "old-version",
>>> "new-version", "most-recently-configured-version", and so forth,
>>> did not occur to me.

>>> I'd propose a Policy amendment dropping support for this
>>> long-obsolete dpkg behavior, but I reckon I've lost my
>>> Policy-amendment-proposing credentials in your eyes.

>> I would support it.

>        Why?

It is cruft and policy has over 300KB. Afaik policy's purpose is not
to document historical behaviour in dpkg but technical requirements
for packages in Debian.

> Policy does not ask you to cater to ancient versions of
> dpkg; it merely mentions historical behaviour, and you can't
> retroactively go back and change dpkg implementations from way back
> when.

The simple fact that it is documented in policy without big fat
markers "Don't implement today, this is *ancient* dpkg, it is useless
today" makes it a suggestion.

I recently modified some postinst and (following policy) added the
nowadays completely useless test for '<unknown>' because I did not
check dpkg's changelog ATM.
[o] Stupid      [o] Overzealous   [o] Avoidable

> who can see no reason to go back and edit working postinst scripts
> just to remove compatibility with improbably old versions of dpkg

Removing the paragraph from policy would not force you to edit working
postinst scripts.
              cu andreas

Reply to: