Bug#89473: PROPOSAL] dpkg-statoverride and Conflicts: suidmanager (<< 0.50)
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 01:54:08PM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> Have you noticed you're advocating creating dynamic users in just about
> every machine that ever needs to build a certain package JUST because you
> dislike dpkg-statoverride usage in postinst? It looks like you're trying to
> address a problem the wrong way, to me.
>
> Maybe MUST guidelines that force the correct usage of dpkg-override, and a
> severe warning that such stuff should be done in preinst if at all possible
> would be a better solution to the problem.
Yes, when I started this thread, I hadn't thought of this case. But
I've now become convinced of the need to have a distinction between
maintainer statoverrides, for cases like this, and local
statoverrides, which take precedence.
Wichert, is this possible?
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: