Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?
sean finney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 06:56:44PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> the simple fact that a postinst script fails because a change has been
>> refused isn't - and for sure it is not a serious or grave bug,
>> severities often used when a postinst fails.
> without knowing more about "package x", i would suggest that this is
> a bug in the packaging that the postinst script failed if said
> program/utility/daemon was not able to function.
You mean the postinst script should succeed even if the program is not
able to work? This doesn't fit with the meaning of "Depends", because
other packages declare a Depends exactly because they want to use the
program, they want it to function. If they cannot rely on it's working
after the postinst has completed successfully, this a severe bug IMO.
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich