also sprach Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> [2010.02.04.1245 +1300]: > I suppose it's a question of what the best defaults are, but I prefer the > behavior of assuming the ownership and permissions shipped in the package > are correct and the installed files should be modified to match. The case > where I want to preserve the existing permissions is much rarer than the > case where the new version of the package needs to change the permissions > for some reason, I think.
I tend to agree. With that in mind, though, why would one ever want/need to chmod/chown files under control by dpkg (which are the only ones for which dpkg-statoverride applies to) *from postinst*? I can perfectly understand admins wanting to override package defaults, but not why the package maintainer needs to use dpkg-statoverride. In short, I am in favour of forbidding use of dpkg-statoverride by package maintainers, unless I missed something in the above. -- .''`. martin f. krafft <madd...@d.o> Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems seminars, n.: from "semi" and "arse", hence, any half-assed discussion.
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
