reassign 562945 tech-ctte # unmerge 506898 224509 # policy-maintainers, I think you should do this ^ thanks Hi, for those coming late to the party: this bug is about a package which fails to install cleanly: Unpacking runit-run (from .../runit-run_1.1.1_all.deb) ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/runit-run_1.1.1_all.deb (--unpack): subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1 Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/runit-run_1.1.1_all.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) Read the bug log for all it's glory. On Freitag, 18. Juni 2010, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Freitag, 18. Juni 2010, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > For high-priority prompts without a reasonable default > > > answer, maintainer scripts may abort if there is no controlling > > > terminal. > > > > from where in policy is this? rgrep doesnt let me find this string... > > http://git.debian.org/?p=dbnpolicy/policy.git;a=blob;f=policy.sgml;h=9d2d51 >66bc7e2d0813b64ed3c06a1238e37e66a1;hb=HEAD#l3687 Ah, thanks. You didnt quote the following sentence though: "However, this situation should be avoided if at all possible, since it prevents automated or unattended installs. In most cases, users will consider this to be a bug in the package." which is exactly my point. I think policy is unclear here: this part of policy was added per #224509, while there is #506898 (which is unfortuantly merged with 224509, as I read it should conflict with #506898), which says that this part of policy contradicts with §3.9.1 intruduced via #206684, which makes use of debconf mandatory. > > > Replacing /sbin/init sounds high-priority to me, so it seems to me > > > policy disagrees with you. > > > > I'd say that a reasonable default is not to replace /sbin/init if not > > told to do so by either a special variable or file or debconf preseeding. > > Apparently Gerrit disagrees with you, and I'd say that's his call as the > package maintainer. While everybody is free to disagree with me, I think there are some parts of policy which must not be violated, as we care deeply about unattended and automated installs. So I'm reassigning this to the technical committee to decide this. cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.