On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:12:29 +0000 (UTC), Oleg Verych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 23-09-2007, Manoj Srivastava: []
>>>> It doesn't catch files created by Maintainer scripts?
>>
>>> This is the design flaw in those scripts (even in whole package
>>> management).
>>
>> I am not sure you have made your case here.
>>
>> Currently, using maintainer scripts, it is indeed possible to create
>> a configuration file that is referred to by many packages, but is
>> owned by none -- so the file survives even though the package that
>> created it went away.
>>
>> Why is this a design flaw?
> Where to find information about those files easily?
> Negative search on `dpkg -L *' ?:)
This is part of a use case. Apart from curiosity, is there a
reason to want to know "information about a file"? (Given that most of
the information we know about other files in /etc is that they might
belong to a package). Is there a reason we want this information?
If a file does not belong to any particular package, why is that
a deficiency that we must solve?
> What i mean is absolute freedom in maintainer scripts. Bad freedom,
> where scripts can do anything they like. No comprehensive
> logging/tracing infrastructure at all, everything is ad hoc.
I think this is going overboard with loaded words. The scripts
have to follow Debian policy, after all, and not create problems for
other packages and such. Restricting freedom for the sake of
restricting freedom is also bad, if you want a counter argument in
similar idiom.
manoj
--
If Bill Gates is the Devil then Linus Torvalds must be the
Messiah. Unknown source
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
