On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> Guillem Jover wrote:
>
>> What'd be the point of doing that?
> For example, simplicity.
Simplicity of the policy? Is it really that onerous Most people
just let the helper packages create the maintainer scripts, of just
program b example.
I also think that there might be packages that take specific
action on those cases in the future; since in all cases packages are
being removed or disappearing. Having information that distinguishes
which part of the state transition is in effect is information may
be useful, and I see little benefit in removing it.
>> The maintainer scripts have to be
>> called anyway for those cases, and the fact that no one uses them now or
>> in Debian, does not mean there's no use for this information in the
>> future or in other places.
> I always wondered how this params can be used by maintainer scripts,
> even in theory.
A failure of imagination on our art should not be used to block
this functionality for cases where it might be needed.
manoj
--
The existence of god implies a violation of causality.
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
