Mike Markley wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:43:00AM +0200, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Mike Markley wrote: >>> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:34:40AM +0200, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> Mike Markley wrote: >>>>> Upon further inspection, this doesn't actually fix the core issue, which >>>>> is that the postinst and postrm scripts require adduser/deluser. IMO, >>>>> the best solution is a Depends: on adduser. I'll prepare an upload. >>>> Which I also added in my NMU... >>> The only files touched in the patch you sent were changelog and postrm; >>> did I miss something? >> Yes, that you already have a dependency on adduser. > > You're right; I've clearly misunderstood the problem. I see the part of > policy that makes this an RC bug. > > What I'm curious about are best practices for a solution: is the correct > behavior in that circumstance really to leave old users lying around?
Some people think it's better to leave all old users around as you never can be sure you removed all the files belonging to the user. So they think it's better to leave removing users to the sysadmin. Feel free to open a discussion about this on debian-devel... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
