Re: Should ucf be of priority required?
On Sat, Dec 05 2009, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 04:47:18PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
>> That is okay, as long as ucf is around. But as soon as it isn't
>> the purge of a package is succesful while leaving modified files around.
>> So the effect is that a purge does not "remove everything".
>> Do we really want that? Should ucf be 'required' to avoid that?
> ucf being priority required is not sufficient. It is still possible to
> remove such a package (mawk is a good example) and therefore you would
> still need to execute ucf conditionally. The only way around that is to
> make ucf essential, and I don't think that's a good idea.
Making a package essential in order to avoid a if clause in
postinsts is very likely too frivolous a reason to pass muster, yes.
The Constitution may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than what
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C