2009/9/17 Piotr Lewandowski <piotr.lewandow...@gmail.com>: > Hi Alan, > > I need your advice what to do with my first RC-bug. :)
I would normally recommend CC'ing discussions relating to how to fix the bug to the bug report itself - someone else might read the bug and have something relevant to offer to the discussion, or alternatively if the bug takes a while to fix it shows someone contemplating an NMU why the solution is non-trivial and how you've considered fixing it (which as the maintainer you're likely to know the repercussions of the 'obvious' fix better than someone who first saw the package 5 minutes ago). > * Jakub Wilk <uba...@users.sf.net>, 2009-09-14 23:58: >> >> Package: l7-protocols >> Version: 20090528-1 >> Severity: serious >> Justification: Policy 10.8.3 >> >> l7-protocols would happily overwrite user configuration files: >> >> # ls -l /etc/l7-protocols/extra/http-itunes.pat -rw------- 1 root root 30 >> Sep 14 22:57 /etc/l7-protocols/extra/http-itunes.pat >> >> # dpkg -i /path/to/l7-protocols_20090528-1_all.deb [...] >> Unpacking l7-protocols (from .../l7-protocols_20090528-1_all.deb) ... >> Setting up l7-protocols (20090528-1) ... >> >> # ls -l /etc/l7-protocols/extra/http-itunes.pat* >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 45 Sep 14 22:57 >> /etc/l7-protocols/extra/http-itunes.pat -> >> /usr/share/l7-protocols/extra/http-itunes.pat > > I've talked to Jakub about this issue and we've came up with some possible > solutions (none of which are ideal): > > 1) /etc/l7-protocols would be a symlink to /usr/share/l7-protocols managed > by maintainer scripts of l7-protocols. It is not clear what to do during > removal (and before purge) - we shouldn't leave a dangling symlink in /etc. I would avoid this one: mkdir /etc/l7-protocols/local-custom # really makes it in /usr/share/l7-protocols is a bad idea > 2) Patch l7-filter-userspace to look into /usr/share/l7-protocols for > protocol definitions rather than /etc/l7-protocols. Then l7-protocols could > provide no /etc/l7-protocols at all. This might be a sensible option, although it's a significant deviation from what upstream do. There are definitely other packages that take this approach. Would it be possible to make it look in both /etc/l7-protocols (which gets installed/created empty by default) *and* /usr/share/l7-protocols? That might make sense from a behaviour point of view. > 3) l7-protocols maintainer would maintain symlink farm, just like > ca-certificates does. (This would be a significant maintenance burden, > though.) I don't much like this one, it seems like over-engineering the problem with all that it would entail. > 4) Just put all the protocol definitions into /etc/l7-protocols and make > them conffiles. That's an interesting one. They fall nicely into a grey area with regards to what is/isn't really a conf file. > 5) Mark symlinks in /etc/l7-protocols as conffiles. I don't know if it > really would help, though. To be honest I'm not actually sure what the behaviour would be in that case either! Would be interesting to try it and see, if it works this would be quite a good solution. > What do you think? I think I'd rank the solutions in order of preference 5 (if it works!), 2 (adding both locations), 4, 2 (changing the location), 3, 1 How trivial would a patch for 2 be? Alan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
