Re: Piuparts testing status update
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 03:13:42PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> For the "adduser" errors, it might be reasonable to intentionally fail, as a
> mechanism to alert the admin that "the user hasn't and can't be removed". Same
> for update-inetd. Is that the intent?
Hmm, I would read policy in a way that since a package can not rely on
its dependencies being present during purge, their pure absence alone
should not be a valid reason to fail. If this on the other hand is
a valid excuse to leave cruft behind is not really clear to me. I
would certainly prefer the package just printing a warning and
exiting normal rather than failing but I can't really point out
a specific policy reference right now to make this more than a personal
preference.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
Reply to: