This one time, at band camp, John Goerzen said: > I am following the design set forth in the dbconfig-common docs and > examples. You appear to be referencing section 7.2 of policy. > > I am reassinging this to dbconfig-common since I can't do anything about > it if dbconfig-common requires packages to act this way (as it appears > to). I can't really work out what the sane thing to do in postrm might > be since I can understand why dbconfig-common requires things to be > pulled out there. > > If the dbconfig-common maintainers believe that there is already a way > around this, I would ask them to please document it and update the > example files they install in /usr/share/doc/dbconfig-common so as to > not encourage developers to do things the wrong way.
The problem is needing a non-essential package during purge. This means one of two things: dbconfig-common becomes essential (not that great, IMHO - it's big enough already), or the rest of the world that relies on it uses clever postrm snippets that do the right thing when it's unavailable. That sucks as well, since it means reinventing the wheel. Sean, can you come up with a reasonably clever postrm snippet that will do if [ $really_cool_dbconfig_common_thing_I_want ] ; then just_do_the_right_thing else kludge fi So that we can all stuff them in our postrm scripts, and eventually, we can get a dh_dbconfig-common out of it? (I understand if you can't - the world has been waiting for the just_do_the_right_thing function for ages now). Admittedly, this is a policy violation that bacula doesn't have compliant postrm scripts, but I'm not sure that it's a problem with dbconfig-common. Just my 2p. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
