user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 684126 normative discussion
block 684126 316521
thanks
Le Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 09:35:46AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> I agree. Unfortunately, due to #316521, you get piuparts errors if you
> take that approach, which I suspect is the cause of many of the maintainer
> script rmdirs to try to be more aggressive about removing things.
I also agree. I am blocking #684126 by #316521 (and will promptly
undo if it was not consensual), and propose the following change
for when #316521 is solved. (Patch attached).
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
>From 0868d01d79d04ec555c86f7e86cb813fb6367082 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:30:20 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Recommend to ship directories needed by maintainer scripts,
for proper removal.
Closes: #684126
---
policy.sgml | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 52dbb26..0aa08d2 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -3854,7 +3854,16 @@ Checksums-Sha256:
pathname. Maintainer scripts should also not reset the
<tt>PATH</tt>, though they might choose to modify it by
prepending or appending package-specific directories. These
- considerations really apply to all shell scripts.</p>
+ considerations really apply to all shell scripts.
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
+ Maintainer scripts should not create directories. Instead, the
+ binary packages should install the directories needed for their
+ maintainer scripts together with the other files and directories
+ distributed in their data tar archive, to ensure that they are
+ properly removed when purging packages.
+ </p>
</sect>
<sect id="idempotency">
--
1.7.10
