On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:20:09PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote: > maybe this problem may be mentioned in the Sarge release notes ? Please contact debian-doc@lists.debian.org about adding it to the release notes if you think it should be mentioned. IMHO, it seems like a minor issue; I don't think the release notes should be a substitute for documentation that explains the Debian packaging system to users, and too much detail in the release notes just reduces the number of users who will read it. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:46:14AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:15:37PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote: > .... > > > any suggestions? > > > > I don't see any reason to worry about it; I think it was a bug for lpr-ppd > > to ship /etc/printcap as a conffile, but it's a historical bug that I don't > > think we should be trying to fix now. The simple answer is "well, don't > > purge packages without looking at the conffile list!". > > > > It would definitely be wrong for lprng to declare /etc/printcap as a > > conffile; there are many packages that use /etc/printcap, with no common > > package they can depend on which could own this conffile, and /etc/printcap > > also doesn't fit policy's description of what a conffile should be. (If > > you're installing a printer daemon, you almost certainly want to print, > > which means customizing the printcap...) > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > Steve Langasek > > postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature