Re: /media for sarge?
sean finney <seanius@seanius.net> schrieb:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:51:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Achieving FHS compliance by upgrading could be sometimes very
>> > tricky. Please perform FHS compliance tests on newly installed
>> > systems only.
>>
>> Umm. How would creation of these new directories impact my
>> system? I agree that my fstab ought not to be mucked with, but
>> creating three dirs if they do not already exists ought to hurt
>> nothing?
>
> i think the issue was more of annoyance than impact... if a local
> admin removes said dirs, he/she'd probably like them to stay gone.
How can he have removed them if he's upgrading from woody? The postinst
script could easily check the version from which it is upgraded.
> i think i agree with the arguments against automatically creating them
> in upgrades, but isn't this the type of one-time-question that debconf
> would be good for? that is, in the maintainer scripts, if the version
> change is from pre-fhs to post-fhs, ask the user "upgrade to latest
> fhs spec?" this way, i think everybody would get what they wanted.
Yes, and everybody would have to read the latest fhs document before
deciding. Or you explain in long detail why it might be clever to create
those dirs, and under which circumstances it might be disadvantageous
(are there any?).
This is debconf abuse, I'd say - there's a safe default for everybody.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: