Bug#89674: PROPOSAL] Clarify ldconfig usage
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 08:18:58PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Yes this sentence did exist in the packaging manual, however, there was
> never any explanation of why the postinst script must not call ldconfig if
> $1 isn't set to configure. I don't see any reasons why it shouldn't either
> since by the time dpkg calls the postinst script, the temporary files no
> longer exist.
The text was copied verbatim.
> What is new is that this sentence now has the weight of policy. So we now
> have dozens of perfectly functioning library packages that have serious bugs
> in bugs in them.
That's probably correct; they function perfectly if everything works,
but if the postinst ends up being called with an abort-* argument, I'm
not sure that it would. Any experts out there?
Perhaps we can temporarily change "must not" to "should not"?
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Reply to: