Re: Should ucf be of priority required?
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 09:28:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 06 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 11:44:39AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Making a package essential in order to avoid a if clause in
> >> postinsts is very likely too frivolous a reason to pass muster, yes.
> > I do not want to avoid the if-clause. I want to avoid leaving modified
> > files around when removing a package, that modified them (indirectly)
> > in the first place.
> In this particular case, what is the harm befalling the user?
Well, I don't think that making an Operating System is just about
keeping harm away from our users.
> What is the use case that will present an actual bad thing happening,
> apart from your wish that modified files for packages no longer
> installed but not purged do not remain on the system?
Why are you talking about modified files to remain on the system?
I'm not sure you've got the point.
To make it more clear:
- I'm _not_ saying that ucf database has to removed, when its removed
but not purged.
- I'm not talking about the configuration files of package xyz itself.
Its clearly the job of the postrm to remove those files and this can
- I'm not saying that apart from the configuration files any file needs
to be *removed* from the system (your statement "your wish... files
... do not remain on the system" makes me think you imply that)
All I'm talking about is: The package that is beeing purged created data
during its installation. If it is beeing purged, it should remove this
data unless there is a good reason to keep it.
In this case there is not even almost a reason to keep the data.
It has no use on a fresh installation of the package (and in fact it
must not, because the package has been purged). It has no use without
reinstalling the package (contrary to logfiles for example).
Basically its garbage.
So under this aspect I do not see how you can argue that I would need to
make a case why this should not happen. Shouldn't it be the other way
round? Shouldn't we make a case why we should or can leave *garbage* on the
users system when *purging* the package who created that garbage?
Shouldn't we make a case, why its ok to have things in our manpages,
such as dpkg(1) which are not true?
Just to rememember:
purge The package is selected to be purged (i.e. we want to remove
everything, even configuration files).
Otherwise how would your argumentation be different from saying
its okay to leave configuration backup files around when uninstalling?
The package did not install/create them, dpkg did it. What harm is it
causing to the user? What bad thing would actually happen?
Thats obvious not a good line to follow and if we'd do it would be in
contrast to how Debian solutions in the past seeked to get near