Hi all, This morning I filed bug 681558 [1] against my co-maintained package cacti. When I was filing it, I was under the impression that the solution would be simple, creating a soft-link from /usr/local/share/cacti/include -> /usr/share/cacti/site/include. Before I starting implementing it I decided to have a look at the policy about such things, but unfortunately, unless I am much mistaken, this is not allowed (section 9.1.2) [2]. So my question is how to deal with the following problem. Since cacti 0.8.8, the package supports plug-in architecture. This means that the system administrator can add plug-ins to his installation to enhance the functionality of cacti. As cacti is installed in /usr/share/cacti, and the administrator is not supposed to add site specific things there, I decided to let the admin put his plug-ins in /usr/local/share/cacti/plugins and soft-link /usr/share/cacti/site/plugins to that location. The bug I filed [1], is about how this fails as some (or all, I have not tested yet), assume that they are installed in a sub-directory of the main cacti installation (including things like ../include/auth.php). I already requested [3] upstream to allow for a system where the plugin directory can be configured and I assume these kind of problems will, if accepted, go away automatically. But until then, should I just consider plug-ins that do this broken, and write in README.Debian that admins could create a soft-link themselves (after I confirm that this really solves the issue), or are there other possibilities that I have not thought of so far? Are there other packages that have similar demands or problems? Kind regards, Paul [1] http://bugs.debian.org/681558 [2] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#s9.1.2 [3] http://bugs.cacti.net/view.php?id=2227
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature