On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 02:23:36AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> 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.
Yes, and current practice is that a controlling terminal is required...
> Hence, as dpkg does not check for /dev/tty
> availability, I think it is policy that should change, not dpkg.
dpkg doesn't check that all Essential: yes packages are installed, either.
Which is to say, just because dpkg doesn't check some condition, it
doesn't mean that other packages will continue working if you violate it.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
pgpnGmWfJ_Mol.pgp
Description: PGP signature