On 17/08/2004 Matthew Palmer wrote: > > this would be a clear policy: if admins want their logs to stay at > > packages purge, they have to create own subdirs for this. > > Or how about the current policy: if you don't want your logfiles removed, > DON'T PURGE THE PACKAGE. I know the finger-macros for package removal are > likely bound to 'dpkg --purge <foo>', but there's an old rule: "while > working as root, sit on your hands before pressing enter". as some participants of the thread already proofed, current policy might be to strict ... > > another solution: add debconf questions about logdir removal at purge > > time in packages storing logs. > > No. No no nooooooo. And did I mention, "NO!". There's too many frigging > Debconf questions around already. ok, that's true ;( > > it is the way many packages currently manage database removal. > > Yeah, and I think it's a bad idea there, too. It only exists in a couple of > my packages because I put it in there when I was young and naive (and on the > example of others), but I now firmly believe that if you don't want your > data / logfiles / whatever else silently removed, don't --purge. -r is > shorter to type, too. i'm still convinced that removing local files, like /etc/apache/conf.d/* and /var/log/apache/<foo_locally_created>/* might be to strict. i like these messages that warn you that they don't remove /etc/<foo> because the directory is not empty. bye jonas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature