Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes: > That last "if" seems like an odd and not too useful loophole. It would > be nicer for policy to clearly state that packages *should not* modify > configuration files owned by other packages directly, whether a tool for > indirectly modifying is provided or not. If such a tool doesn't exist, > that's a hint that it's time to help the package maintainer to write > one.
Yeah, that's generally how we've interpreted it in the past. > How about something like this patch? This generally looks good, but here you remove the definition of "owning package": > <item> > - One of the related packages (the "owning" package) > - will manage the configuration file with maintainer > + One of the related packages (the <em>owner</em>) > + manages the configuration file with maintainer > scripts as described in the previous section. > </item> but here it's still used: > configuration file. They should either depend on > - the core package to guarantee that the configuration > + the owning package to guarantee that the configuration > modifier program is available or accept gracefully > that they cannot modify the configuration file if it > is not. (This is in addition to the fact that the We should be consistent about terminology. Other than that nit, seconded. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
