Bug#224509: [PROPOSAL] Correct spurious promise regarding TTY availability

[Tore Anderson <tore@linpro.no>]

* Tore Anderson

 >>   Current policy says a controlling terminal is guaranteed to be
 >>  available in the maintainer scripts.  This is simply not true, for
 >>  dpkg will happily run without one [...]

* Chris Waters

 > That's not strictly true.  Dpkg calls maintainer scripts, and
 > maintainer scripts may assume that there is a controlling terminal, so
 > technically, dpkg needs a controlling terminal to hand off to these
 > scripts.

  Well, I considered submitting this bug on dpkg instead of policy.
 However, statements from the policy editors on numerous occations have
 given me the impression that policy seeks to document current practise,
 not enforce changes.  Hence, as dpkg does not check for /dev/tty
 availability, I think it is policy that should change, not dpkg.

  On the other hand, if the policy editors disagree, they are free to
 reassign the bug to dpkg, calling for /dev/tty availability checking.
 I don't care whether it is policy or dpkg that changes, only that these
 two agree on what is promised to the maintainer scripts.

-- 
Tore Anderson