On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 04:32:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:26:41AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:16:03AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: > > > This one time, at band camp, Jonas Smedegaard said: > > > > On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:44:59 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote: > > > > > > Note that it talks about configuration files, not just dpkg conffiles. > > > > > Yes. I am well aware of that. > > > > Ah, from the way you were talking about 'owning', I assumed you meant > > > something like dpkg -S /etc/kernel-img.conf didn't show anything, so you > > > were thinking it was unowned. If that's not the case, I apologize. > > > > > > Your package directly modifies another package's configuration file, > > > > > instead of using an interface to do so. > > > > > Please clarify: Which _single_ package do you believe to own those configuration files in question? > > > > It's fairly clearly kernel-package. kernel-package ships a sample config file, a man page, and is also responsible for the postinst hooks > > > in the kernel images that mess with kernel-img.conf. > > > i have to disagree with this point. i do not have kernel-package installed on my system, but i have kernels installed which use /etc/kernel-img.conf, which was created by debian-installer. > > > kernel-package is a helper utility to create kernel packages, not a package that you need installed on most systems, unless you need a custom kernel or are a kernel package maintainer. > > > that said, i do agree that this probably shouldn't be in the postinst of > > the package :) > > s/shouldn't be/must not be/. You can't claim a well-known config file as > yours just because there's no other package on the system that has done so; > this is still a policy violation, both because it's not your config file to > be editing, and because your postinst script doesn't respect a user's config > on upgrades if the user has *removed* these update-lessdisk-kernels lines.
i agree entirely. sorry for not using policy-compliant language in the context of an RC bug. i never meant to imply that it should somehow not be considered RC due to a technicality or some such. the point i was trying to make is that kernel-package shouldn't be considered an "owner" of /etc/kernel-img.conf (as defined in section 10.7.4 of debian-policy 3.6.2.2). live well, vagrant
