[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#162120: marked as done (debian-policy: Deletion of configuration files--should it be preserved?)



Your message dated Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:31:19 -0500
with message-id <873bg0bbg8.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>
and subject line The submitter agrees policy need not be changed, and I agree
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.1
Severity: important

Section 11.7.3 says that changes to configuration files are supposed to be
preserved on upgrade.  This is not commonly done, however, if the change
consists in deleting the file entirely.  Existing practice is probably fine,
but the policy sentence is misleading.  I suggest adding something like:

"(though packages are permitted to reinstall configuration files that have been
completely deleted)"

-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Kernel Version: Linux becket.becket.net 2.2.19 #1 Fri Jun 29 15:36:16 PDT 2001 i686 unknown

Versions of the packages debian-policy depends on:
ii  fileutils      4.1-10         GNU file management utilities


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,

        Preserving admin changes, including deletion of configuration
 files, is well established, and lots of people rely on it.

        manoj
-- 
Computers are not intelligent.  They only think they are.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

--- End Message ---

Reply to: