Bug#541872: debian-policy: identical notation for disabled-by-user and auto-generated entries in /etc/inetd.conf
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 10:33:51PM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> > Sounds good. inetd-base might be a slightly better name, since it's
> > something all the inetd implementations will depend upon (but packages
> > /providing/ inetd fragments won't need to, since the TTBOMK file
> > triggers happen transparently). This will mean these packages won't
> > need to do anything except provide the config fragment.
> That's fine by me. I understand that renaming a pkg can be done transparently
> (wrt rdepends) using replaces+provides+conflicts against update-inetd
> (according to devref 5.9.3). In that case I'll use /etc/inetd.base.d instead
> of /etc/inetd.conf.d
> (I suppose it's OK to close bugs belonging to update-inetd from the changelog
> of inetd-base)
No, that would leave the bugs in an inconsistent state, still listed as
being open in the update-inetd package but closed in another package that
they aren't assigned to. Yet another reason not to rename the package.
(And why is this discussion happening in a bug report against debian-policy?
Please take this discussion to the debian-devel mailing list.)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: