Re: Should ucf be of priority required?
On Sat, Dec 05 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> What speaks against it? Its basically a mini tool (Installed-Size: 260)
> and not making it essential leads to the mentioned situations.
I am afraid I do not follow -- what situations are improved by
making ucf essential?
> The only bad thing is, that it depends on a tool which is not essential
> (debconf) and seems not to be able to render questions without debconf.
Actually, the ask questions without debconf functionality was
ripped out just a couple of months ago, since not using debconf is now
a policy violation.
> Or should we simply not care about packages modifying files (via
> external tools) and not reverting those changes when beeing removed?
If you are going to remove the file, why bother reverting any
It is a poor judge who cannot award a prize.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C