Re: Should ucf be of priority required?
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 need to. When the package is purged, and ucf doesn't exist
anymore, what you do is rm -f the relevant files.
Unregistering those files in ucf is necessary so that ucf throws away
the correct checksums from its database, too. However, if ucf itself is
no longer on the system, then the same is true for that database, and
unregistering stuff from that database is no longer necessary.
That does require an appropriate else clause in postrm files that use
ucf, and you should probably file bugs against those that don't, but
that's about it.
The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters
works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is
trying to fool the system.