Bug#403391: debian-policy: scripts as configuration files: should vs. must
Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> writes:
> Current policy says:
>
> ,---- 10.7.1 Definitions
> | Note that a script that embeds configuration information (such as most
> | of the files in /etc/default and /etc/cron.{daily,weekly,monthly}) is
> | de-facto a configuration file and should be treated as such.
> `----
>
> However, I think here the "should" should be a "must", even if we
> disregard the requirement that policy should mirror etch_rc_policy.txt.
> If we take that text as normative, it's "must", anyway.
The relevant portion of the etch (and also lenny) release policy is:
Packages' /etc/init.d scripts must be treated as configuration files.
Packages' /etc/default scripts must be treated as configuration files.
Packages that need to install a cron job, must place a script in
/etc/cron.{daily,weekly,monthly}, or a file in /etc/cron.d. In either
case the file must be treated as a configuration file.
Given that Policy is only really useful when kept in sync with release
policy, I agree with making a change here. Policy is making a general
statement and the RC policy is making a specific statement, so how about
replacing this paragraph with:
As noted elsewhere, /etc/init.d, /etc/default files, scripts installed
in /etc/cron.{daily,weekly,monthly}, and cron configuration installed
in /etc/cron.d must be treated as configuration files. In general,
any script that embeds configuration information is de-facto a
configuration file and should be treated as such.
There is also a s/should/must/ change to be made in 9.5 for scripts
installed in /etc/cron.{daily,weekly,monthly}.
I think this change is fairly obvious and if there are no objections will
apply it for the next Policy release.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: