This one time, at band camp, Jonas Smedegaard said: > On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:35:55 +0200 Bill Allombert wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 03:34:58PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote: > > > Package: lessdisks-terminal > > > Severity: serious > > > Justification: Policy 10.7.4 > > > > > > debian/lessdisks-terminal.postinst: > > > if ! egrep "postinst_hook|postrm_hook" /etc/kernel-img.conf; > > > then echo "postinst_hook = /usr/sbin/update-lessdisks-kernels" > > > >> /etc/kernel-img.conf echo "postrm_hook > > > >> = /usr/sbin/update-lessdisks-kernels" >> /etc/kernel-img.conf > > > fi > > > Note that debian/lessdisks-xterminal.postinst has a similar bug: > > > > debian/lessdisks-xterminal.postinst: > > echo "$inittab_line" >> /etc/inittab > > Hi Bill and Stephen, > > What exactly is the policy violation here? > > Policy 10.7.4 forbids packaging scripts to mess with conffiles of other > packages. But /etc/kernel-img.conf and /etc/inittab is not conffiles.
This is the section that is relevant:
If it is desirable for two or more related packages to share a
configuration file and for all of the related packages to be able
to modify that configuration file, then the following should be done:
One of the related packages (the "owning" package) will manage
the configuration file with maintainer scripts as described in the
previous section.
The owning package should also provide a program that the other
packages may use to modify the configuration file.
The related packages must use the provided program to make any desired
modifications to the configuration file. They should either depend
on the core 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 configuration file may not even be present in the
latter scenario.)
Note that it talks about configuration files, not just dpkg conffiles.
Your package directly modifies another package's configuration file,
instead of using an interface to do so.
The fact that there is, as afar as I know, no current interface, makes
this trickier to solve on your own, I understand ;(
> Policy 10.7.4 also mandates shared configuration files to be owned by
> only one package. But it is not clear to me which single package that
> should be (that I should then file bugs against about an interface for
> messing with its configuration files). The packages sysvinit and a
> bunch of kernel packages seem to be kandidates, but looking at their
> packaging scripts they too seem to treat the configuration files as
> alien.
Probably bugs against kernel-package (for kernel-img.conf) for an
interface script is sufficient to get this part of the bug closed.
I am not sure how to handle the inittab stuff, as IIRC there are several
initscripts implementations floating around out there (but maybe only
sysvinit handles inittab?) I just don't know the answer.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| ,''`. Stephen Gran |
| : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer |
| `- http://www.debian.org |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
