On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:15:23PM -0400, sean finney wrote: > > 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. > > yes, bacula is not policy complaint as reported in the bug logs, but > i'll take the blame for having instructed people to do so in the first > place :) > > so i think in this case the bug should be cloned with one assigned to > each package, and the bacula one can report being blocked by dbconfig's > until i come up with $solution.
That sounds reasonable. I guess bugs should be mass filed on anything else that uses dbconfig-common and followed the examples? What effect will this have on bacula's release-worthiness? I don't want to get stuck with bacula pulled from etch over this (but OTOH I know that you move fast, Sean, and I'm happy to roll a new Bacula package ASAP once you've made the necessary touches to dbconfig-common, so maybe it's not an issue) -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
