Manoj Srivastava wrote: > 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. Yes, simplicity of the policy.
From what I saw, no one helper package in sid have some business with 'in-favour', 'removing', 'disappear'. But some of people-written snippets have, often doing it wrong. > 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. Can you elaborate on this? Not for convincing me, I'm just curious how the package can take different actions on removal depending on what package is the case of removal. >>> 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. >[...] > > A failure of imagination on our art should not be used to block > this functionality for cases where it might be needed. With that kind of arguments, the standards cannot ever rid of unused bits. I am giving up on this proposal as I see no positive feedback. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
