Re: Piuparts testing status update
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:35:12PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> 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.
In the case of adduser, there is a strong case for not doing deluser at
*all* on purge, because it's impossible to ensure that there are no off-line
or remote resources referencing the uid/gid.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: