Re: Can a package modify slapd.conf in its maintainer script?
RFC 2119 says:
| 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
| may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore
| a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
| carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
Debian Policy Manual says (quoting an old version, since the enumeration
makes the original intension more clear):
| 11.7.4 Sharing configuration files
| The maintainer scripts must not alter a conffile of any package,
| including the one the scripts belong to.
It is not a conffile, so this is not a problem.
| If it is desirable for two or more related packages to share
| a configuration file and for all of the related packages to be able to
| modify that configuration file, then the following should be done:
| 1. One of the related packages (the "owning" package) will manage
| the configuration file with maintainer scripts as described in the
| previous section.
| 2. The owning package should also provide a program that the
| other packages may use to modify the configuration file.
| 3. The related packages must use the provided program to
| make any desired modifications to the configuration
| file. They should either depend on the core package to
| guarantee that the configuration modifier program is
| available or accept gracefully that they cannot modify
| the configuration file if it is not. (This is in
| addition to the fact that the configuration file may
| not even be present in the latter scenario.)
The whole procedure *should* be done, so this is not a must. Is there
a valid reason in this particular circumstance to ignore the
recommendation of the policy? Do you unterstand the full implications
and did you carefully weighed your decision to alter the other packages
configuration file (see quoted part of the RFC)? Is the other packages
maintainer aware of the changes you do in his or her configuration file?
I think such circumstances should at least be documented and would
prefer to not alter the configuration file at all or using such
a modifying script, so yes it is a bug and can't simply be closed. But
the whole procedure is valid since it is only a recommendation by the
policy, so this is IMHO not a release critical bug.