On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 01:17:30PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: > On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 12:39:28PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > There's no reason that ucf *should* fall under either of these rules; so > > even if ucf /didn't/ work the way it does, the right solution here would be > > to fix it so that it did, not to add it to Essential. > Makes sense. But how do you fix a package to do what its supposed to do, > when it isn't installed anymore? You don't; but I don't see any evidence that ucf's behavior isn't already correct. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature