Re: configuration files, ownership and dpkg-statoverride
Paul Gevers writes ("configuration files, ownership and dpkg-statoverride"):
> I am looking into dbconfig-common RC bug 720517  and I was wondering
> what the general idea is of maintainer scripts changing the permissions
> and/or owners of configuration files and the use of dpkg-statoverride.
The user should not be expected or required to use dpkg-statoverride
on configuration files (whether they are dpkg-managed conffiles or
maintainers-script-managed). chmod/chown should be sufficient.
> I myself find it unacceptable that updating a package changes the
> permissions/owners of a configuration file without asking, even when
> I have not documented that fact with dpkg-statoverride. At least
> that is how I read policy 10.7.3 .
I think you are right. But I don't see anyone disputing this.
Also I don't see in your references an explanation from anyone as to
why dbconfig-common does this.