Re: Wht remove /usr/local dirs in prerm rather than postrm?
[Resent because the first message bounced--hope noone get's this twice.]
On 13 Mar 1998, Rob Browning wrote:
> Is there some good reason? I guess it depends on the interpretation
> of "postrm".
[snip]
IIRC, the reason for this is that the "prerm" is the counter-part of the
"postinst" script.
> It seemed to me like it might make sense to remove them in the postrm
> where you know that anything that might have referenced this directory
> is gone, and can't be executed again.
Only empty /usr/local directories may be removed in the prerm script
(perhaps this should be stressed in the manual?) and the package may not
place files into a /usr/local directory itself, so it doesn't make a big
difference when these directories are removed. (It's just important that
they are removed, since otherwise the user would have lots of unused
directories in /usr/local.)
Hope this answers your question,
Chris
-- Christian Schwarz
Do you know schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
Debian GNU/Linux? schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
http://www.debian.org http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: