Re: Should ucf be of priority required?
On Sat, Dec 05 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> 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 that the change is bound to the package removed, not
> to ucf, thats why I'm wondering at all.
That's pretty abstract. And this generally, there might not be
something one may say one way or the other, and have to deal with it on
a case by case basis.
In this particular case, do you see I concrete problem that I do
not? If you think there is a concrete problem, can you explain? I
can't see a problem here, and the ucf man page has wat I beliece to be
the correct advice.
It is bad luck to be superstitious. Andrew W. Mathis
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C