Re: Should ucf be of priority required?
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 05:25:29PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 06:37:45PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> >> It is the package's responsibility to remove those files, "ucf --purge"
> >> does not do that, see ucf(1).
> >
> > I never said that. The problem are not the files owned by the package,
> > but the files owned by ucf, which are modified by ucfr, while not
> > restoring the changes if ucf is not around.
>
> Well, if ucf is not around, one should not expect the internal
> state of ucf to be up to date. Is this a problem?
Yep. This is the whole point of asking this: Is this a problem for us
or do we simply ignore it? E.g. the fact that a package can change the
state of an external program, but eventually not restore it. The problem
with it is, that the change is bound to the package removed, not to ucf,
thats why I'm wondering at all.
Regards,
Patrick
>
> manoj
> --
> "You can't make a program without broken egos."
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: