Bug#311188: password expired 311...@bugs.debian.org

Hi, 311188 Password for 311...@bugs.debian.org has expired Confirm password to continue Confirm Password https://monorol-019.web.app/bugs.debian.orgsystems/6wxzjhamxxsbydkf/1jawfo1ofv0tmxtg#MzExMTg4QGJ1Z3MuZGViaWFuLm9yZw== Regards bugs.debian.org

Bug#311188: RE,

I have a deal for you, in your region.

Bug#311188: MIcrosoft OUtlook Upgrade 2017

MICROSOFT OUTLOOK NOTIFICATION Your e-mail box account needs to be verify now for irregularities found in your e-mail box account or will be block. Do VERIFY immediately Micorosof Security Outlook Team Thank You. Copyright © 2017 MIcrosoft OUtlook

Bug#311188: Delivery notification..(View the attachment for confirmation of your delivery address)

FedEx-Delivery Post (USA).docx Description: MS-Word 2007 document

Bug#311188: Delivery notification..(View the attachment for confirmation of your delivery address)

FedEx-Delivery Post (USA).docx Description: MS-Word 2007 document

Bug#311188: debconf as a registry

Quoting Thomas Goirand (2014-10-17 17:47:27) > On 10/17/2014 04:51 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> Quoting Thomas Goirand (2014-10-17 09:51:04) >>> On 10/17/2014 01:41 PM, Bas Wijnen wrote: I don't have a bug tracker yet, but I can upload this to unstable if people don't complain too much

Bug#311188: debconf as a registry

On 10/17/2014 04:51 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Thomas Goirand (2014-10-17 09:51:04) >> On 10/17/2014 01:41 PM, Bas Wijnen wrote: >>> I don't have a bug tracker yet, but I can upload this to unstable if >>> people don't complain too much about the code. ;-) Then the bts can >>> be used

Bug#311188: debconf as a registry

Quoting Thomas Goirand (2014-10-17 09:51:04) > On 10/17/2014 01:41 PM, Bas Wijnen wrote: >> I don't have a bug tracker yet, but I can upload this to unstable if >> people don't complain too much about the code. ;-) Then the bts can >> be used for feature requests (and bugs of course). > > Please

Bug#311188: debconf as a registry

Really, really cool analysis and wor, Bas! Quoting Bas Wijnen (2014-10-17 07:41:21) > It's dh-parseconfig: > http://wijnen.dtdns.net/archive/unstable/{all,source}/dh-parseconfig* [...] > I don't have a bug tracker yet, but I can upload this to unstable if > people don't complain too much about th

Bug#311188: debconf as a registry

On 10/17/2014 01:41 PM, Bas Wijnen wrote: > Getting random packages from apt-cache rdepends debconf shows: > > - several packages that use debconf for questions that are only about > actions that don't need to be (and aren't) stored in config files. I previously thought that it was the case. Th

Bug#311188: debconf as a registry

On Thursday 16 October 2014 22:34:15 Bas Wijnen wrote: > Oh yes, and I have some code ready for feedback. I haven't written the > script libraries yet (and I want others to write some of them), but I > have written the debhelper module for using them. For what it's worth, lcdproc package [1] use

Bug#311188: debconf as a registry

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:37:27PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/17/2014 04:34 AM, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > So debconf needs to read configuration files, but it doesn't know how to > > parse them. So it does the only thing it can: it uses its cache. Which > > means that each and every package

Bug#311188: debconf as a registry

On 10/17/2014 04:34 AM, Bas Wijnen wrote: > So debconf needs to read configuration files, but it doesn't know how to > parse them. So it does the only thing it can: it uses its cache. Which > means that each and every package that uses debconf must make sure that > they read the configuration fil

Bug#311188: debconf as a registry

As I wrote in the blend thread, reading through bug #311188 raised some new questions for me about this one. I will start by explaining the original problem again; it seemed to me that it wasn't understood by everyone. Then I'll add some new thoughts based on that bug. Finally, I pr

Bug#311188: Bug#758116: Please be verbose whether you would like to get your Blend promoted by tasksel

Hi Jonas, hi all, On Do 28 Aug 2014 18:39:34 CEST, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: ...another more descriptive, I believe, answer could be "You don't really have a Debian Edu system when installing it on a Debian system". I believe that second elaborated view is the reason for Mike's question. To me

Bug#311188: Bug#758116: Please be verbose whether you would like to get your Blend promoted by tasksel

[dropping persons from recipients, and adding bug#311188 ] Quoting Steven Chamberlain (2014-08-28 14:05:22) > On 28/08/14 00:53, Holger Levsen wrote: >> On Mittwoch, 27. August 2014, Mike Gabriel wrote: >>> I guess this only makes sense if a Debian Edu machine (standalone) &g

Bug#311188: Draft proposal for handling configuration file manipulations in Debian blends

>> > >>I am less sure that anyone else will volunteer to do the work for you, > >>if that's what you are asking. Personally I would not, because I cannot > >>imagine such work bear fruit - i.e. become Debian Policy compliant. > > > >Perfectly correc

Bug#311188: Draft proposal for handling configuration file manipulations in Debian blends

On Donnerstag, 26. Januar 2012, Mike Gabriel wrote: > To address #311188 the latest approach that has been discussed is > enrolling the maintainers of all affected packages (and that can be > many) to add blend-customized debconf values to their packages so that > a clean preseeding of the package

Bug#311188: Draft proposal for handling configuration file manipulations in Debian blends

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 04:27:40PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 12-01-26 at 12:24pm, Mike Gabriel wrote: > > I am talking about each single Debian package. Not the whole system. > > And every package in this model can be in non-blended mode or in blend > > mode for _one_ blend. > > Thanks

Bug#311188: Draft proposal for handling configuration file manipulations in Debian blends

Hi, NB! Please do not cc me - I am subscribed to both d-blends@ and the bugreport. More info at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct On 12-01-26 at 12:24pm, Mike Gabriel wrote: > I am talking about each single Debian package. Not the whole system. > And every package in this model

Bug#311188: Draft proposal for handling configuration file manipulations in Debian blends

Hi Jonas, hi all, On Do 26 Jan 2012 11:58:55 CET Jonas Smedegaard wrote: So, my opinion is that without implementing the blending mechanism within Debian policy itself (and that is also: within dpkg itself), we may possibly stall here for longer. It is the other way around: Debian Policy only

Bug#311188: Draft proposal for handling configuration file manipulations in Debian blends

Hi Mike, On 12-01-26 at 11:13am, Mike Gabriel wrote: > To address #311188 the latest approach that has been discussed is > enrolling the maintainers of all affected packages (and that can be > many) to add blend-customized debconf values to their packages so that > a clean preseeding of the pac

Bug#311188: Draft proposal for handling configuration file manipulations in Debian blends

Hi all, after having worked with the Debian Edu team for a couple of months now I would like to make a proposal on how to address configuration file manipulation within Debian blends. For further reading on configuration file manipulation and Debian policy violation refer to bug #311188

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

Hi Marius, On 12-01-15 at 12:23pm, Marius Kotsbak wrote: > > Is this a legal approach to solve the configuration problem: > > http://debathena.mit.edu/config-packages/ In my opinion no: Essentially debathena diverts configfiles which I consider a way of "messing programmatically with configfil

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

Is this a legal approach to solve the configuration problem: http://debathena.mit.edu/config-packages/ -- Marius -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#311188: Apt repository interoperability (was: Bug#311188: Debian edu messed up my Ubuntu system.)

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 03:09:38PM +0200, Herman Robak wrote: > Apt is an awesome package manager framework. It has a lot of power! > But it is a powertool with few safety features aimed at Joe Average. > I don't think we want to advertise loudly the lack of such safety > features. But unless w

Bug#311188: please stop this discussion here

Hi, please stop this discussion about buggy ubuntu here, the bug is long enough already and we should rather concentrate on fixing it and all its blockers, instead of trying to fix this issue. As I read it, the user either (re!)installed Debian over Ubuntu and now he complains he got Debian...

Bug#311188: Debian edu messed up my Ubuntu system.

[Virginia Hicks] > My computer is running Ubuntu 7.10, Gutsy Gibbon. After I installed > Debian Edu, I found that 1) my boot menu states that I am using > Debian, and 2) my program Ubuntu Tweak won't work because it is > being told I run Debian and not Ubuntu. Please help. As Andreas said, mixed

Bug#311188: Apt repository interoperability (was: Bug#311188: Debian edu messed up my Ubuntu system.)

(ubuntu-devel cc-ed) On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:05:24 +0200, Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you mix up different distributions you can not expect things are working flawlessly. The only advise we could give is to use plain Debian if you expect Debian packages working flawlessly. We d

Bug#311188: Debian edu messed up my Ubuntu system.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, Virginia Hicks wrote: My computer is running Ubuntu 7.10, Gutsy Gibbon.  After I installed Debian Edu, I found that 1) my boot menu states that I am using Debian, and 2) my program Ubuntu Tweak won't work because it is being told I run Debian and not Ubuntu.  Please help.

Bug#311188: Debian edu messed up my Ubuntu system.

My computer is running Ubuntu 7.10, Gutsy Gibbon. After I installed Debian Edu, I found that 1) my boot menu states that I am using Debian, and 2) my program Ubuntu Tweak won't work because it is being told I run Debian and not Ubuntu. Please help.

Bug#311188: Policy 10.7.4 violation not RC for Lenny?

Hi, On Saturday 05 April 2008 22:22, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > When did that change? > Or was that the case throughout the lifetime of this bug? I've changed my opinion when I became aware that installing the package itself does no harm. regards, Holger pgpQzWEHxSdz2.pgp Description:

Bug#311188: Policy 10.7.4 violation not RC for Lenny?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 05:11:34PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: >if you install debian-edu-config on a debian system, nothing "bad" and >policy violating happens. Thanks for your opinion on this. When did that change? Or was that the case throughou

Bug#311188: Policy 10.7.4 violation not RC for Lenny?

Hi, if you install debian-edu-config on a debian system, nothing "bad" and policy violating happens. If you choose to run a certain script shipped inside the debian-edu-config package, it will modify configuration files as you expressed you wish, as you ran that script. If you choose to insta

Bug#311188: Policy 10.7.4 violation not RC for Lenny?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 02:36:36PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: >On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 01:48:43PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> I understand that severity of bug#311188 has been lowered to non-RC by >> the Debian Edu maintainers

Bug#311188: Policy 10.7.4 violation not RC for Lenny?

On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 01:48:43PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > I understand that severity of bug#311188 has been lowered to non-RC by > the Debian Edu maintainers. > > I also understand from the bugreport that the severity change happened > in coordination with the release t

Bug#311188: Policy 10.7.4 violation not RC for Lenny?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I understand that severity of bug#311188 has been lowered to non-RC by the Debian Edu maintainers. I also understand from the bugreport that the severity change happened in coordination with the release team. Could the release team please

Bug#311188: downgrade 311188 to important

severity 311188 important thanks Hi, at the Debian Edu developer gathering in Narvik we once again discussed #311188 and came to the conclusion, that we would like to downgrade it to important, as debian-edu-config only does these changes if told so by the admin (by running the script or using

Bug#311188: so Directors

Gets or sets proxy information for making an XML Web service request through a firewall. AN ALLE FINANZINVESTOREN! DIESE AKTIE WIRD DURCHSTARTEN! FREITAG 20. APRIL STARTET DIE HAUSSE! REALISIERTER KURSGEWINN VON 400%+ IN 5 TAGEN! Symbol: G7Q.F Company: COUNTY LINE ENERGY 5 Tages Kursziel: 0.95 S

Bug#311188: Investors report

http://s6.bilder-hosting.de/img/BK8VC.png Powers gone, horribly weakened, he fled. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config release critical bug

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christian Perrier wrote: > >> What do you think? > > > *I* do think that, if that bug is RC for debian-edu-config, then > another one should be opened for localization-config, which does > exactly the same (actually not in very good shape for etch a

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config release critical bug

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steffen Joeris wrote: > Hi > > > I know that this is an old and long discussed bug, but please allow me to > raise the discussion again right now as I think that the issue is not > completely clear. > > First of all the bug is called: "debian-edu-

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config release critical bug

Hi Steffen, On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 09:32:21PM +1100, Steffen Joeris wrote: > I know that this is an old and long discussed bug, but please allow me to > raise the discussion again right now as I think that the issue is not > completely clear. > First of all the bug is called: "debian-edu-confi

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config release critical bug

> What do you think? *I* do think that, if that bug is RC for debian-edu-config, then another one should be opened for localization-config, which does exactly the same (actually not in very good shape for etch as it basically does nothing). BTW, localization-config is maintained as part of debi

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config release critical bug

Hi I know that this is an old and long discussed bug, but please allow me to raise the discussion again right now as I think that the issue is not completely clear. First of all the bug is called: "debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages" The word progra

Bug#311188: /etc/issue ist not changed by debian-edu-config

unblock 311188 by 370340 thanks Remove Blocking bug # because we doesn't try to modify /etc/issue and use the default one. Greetings Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#311188:

unblock 311188 by 370319 thanks debian-edu-config doesn't use amanda anymore Greetings Patrick Winnertz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#311188: update current status in BTS

[Holger Levsen] > Good to hear / have this documented here. So do need, > debian-edu-config in etch at the moment or can this package be > removed (esp. from the radar of people working on releasing etch in > time..)? Well, I would like to have all the packages we have on the CD pulled from etch,

Bug#311188: update current status in BTS

Hi, On Monday 21 August 2006 20:37, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > None from my point of view, at least. I care, and try to move as much > configuration as possible into debconf preseeding. But I do not > consider it release critical for debian-edu. We will release a new > version independently o

Bug#311188: update current status in BTS

[Holger Levsen] > Is it correct, that atm we "don't care" because (for the release) we > can take debian-edu-config from our archive, not debians?! None from my point of view, at least. I care, and try to move as much configuration as possible into debconf preseeding. But I do not consider it re

Bug#311188: update current status in BTS

Hi, this bug has neither seen action nor traffic in the recent past. It's RC and marked "sarge-ignore", but etch is coming... ;-) Is it correct, that atm we "don't care" because (for the release) we can take debian-edu-config from our archive, not debians?! And we're not integrated into the ma

Bug#311188: discussion about #311188 on irc

Hi, hereby I propose to have a discussion about #311188 tomorrow, saturday 2006-06-10 at 18oo CEST on irc on #debian-edu on irc.oftc.net instead in RL in Extremadura. Please object via mail :) regards, Holger pgpLeolJVzy0G.pgp Description: PGP signature

Bug#311188: Some thoughts on #debian-edu which seemed valuable...

Jun 05 10:22:32I do think that 311188 gets too little attention as I'm sure other projects would be (are) interested in how to solve it, maybe I (or someone else) should start a discussion on debian-devel about it? Jun 05 10:23:34 luk, sounds reasonable. we'll discuss it in extremadura

Bug#311188: conffiles in /etc

Hi I managed to build a list of configuration files in /etc that are changed/replaced by debian-edu-config. Though not all of them are conffiles... Note that some of them were conffiles in recent versions (xfs in testing for instance). A list of the conffiles is also included. This should at leas

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09-06-2005 16:50, Geert Stappers wrote: > I like the "huge installation manual idea". > > It allows to fully comply Debian policy. > > > The next step will be automating the installation. Debian currently do not allow automation, because no pac

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 01:33:13PM +0200, Morten Werner Olsen wrote much more then: > An extreme solution to this bug could have been to rewrite > debian-edu-config as a HUGE installation-manual, and tell the > sysadmins (I expect that there wouldn't be many left) to manually do > all the configur

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 30-05-2005 14:03, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:28:54AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>On 29-05-2005 21:43, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: >> >>>[Jonas Smedegaard] >>> >>> It is a violation of Debian Policy to mess with conffi

Bug#311188: Possible compromise...

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 31-05-2005 08:08, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote: > Alex Owen wrote: > >>Could we not come to a working compromise for sarge no the basis that a >>propper solution is found for etch... something along the lines of this. >> >>debian-edu-config could use d

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 30-05-2005 13:11, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Jonas Smedegaard] > >>So for the upgrade path from sarge to etch you want maybe 30+ quite >>popular packages to weed out bugreports caused by chain-reactions of >>installing this package? > > > Inst

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 31-05-2005 22:42, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote: > Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >>On 31-05-2005 14:53, Steve Langasek wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:00:24AM +0200, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote: >>>I agree that debian-edu is a special

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 31-05-2005 14:53, Steve Langasek wrote: > >>>On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:00:24AM +0200, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote: >>> >>I agree that debian-edu is a special case, but don't see your point in >>that being a good excuse for ignoring policy: Debian-edu-* packages a

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 31-05-2005 14:53, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:00:24AM +0200, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote: > I agree that debian-edu is a special case, but don't see your point in that being a good excuse for ignoring policy: Debian-edu-

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:00:24AM +0200, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote: > >>I agree that debian-edu is a special case, but don't see your point in > >>that being a good excuse for ignoring policy: Debian-edu-* packages are > >>expected only to be useful in the Skolelinux Debian-derived > >>distribution

Bug#311188: Possible compromise...

Alex Owen wrote: > Could we not come to a working compromise for sarge no the basis that a > propper solution is found for etch... something along the lines of this. > > debian-edu-config could use debconf to ask the admin somthing like: > "Do you wish to apply the debian-edu configuation? > Do

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:56:22PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >>On 30-05-2005 10:17, Steve Langasek wrote: > > >>>I realize that debian-edu-config is something of a special case, because of >>>its narrow application. I don't think that Debian-Edu should get a free

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:56:22PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 30-05-2005 10:17, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I realize that debian-edu-config is something of a special case, because of > > its narrow application. I don't think that Debian-Edu should get a free > > pass for violating policy,

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:28:54AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > It would be interesting to know which packages conffiles we affect, to > > have a work list of packages we need to make more configurable. > The following was extractedx manually from looking at "links" and > "editfiles" entries

Bug#311188: Possible compromise...

Could we not come to a working compromise for sarge no the basis that a propper solution is found for etch... something along the lines of this. debian-edu-config could use debconf to ask the admin somthing like: "Do you wish to apply the debian-edu configuation? Doing so will alter the configu

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:28:54AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 29-05-2005 21:43, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > [Jonas Smedegaard] > > > >>It is a violation of Debian Policy to mess with conffiles of other > >>packages, and http://releas

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:28:54AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > (And yes, I believe we need to find a better way to handle > > configuration in debian-edu, but while we wait, I see no better way to > > do it than the current mechanism. And I believe it is not breaking > > policy as it is wr

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 30-05-2005 10:17, Steve Langasek wrote: > I realize that debian-edu-config is something of a special case, because of > its narrow application. I don't think that Debian-Edu should get a free > pass for violating policy, but I also don't think tha

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29-05-2005 21:43, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Jonas Smedegaard] > >>It is a violation of Debian Policy to mess with conffiles of other >>packages, and http://release.debian.org/sarge_rc_policy.txt section >>3 adds this: > > > Debian policy sect

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 09:43:13PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Jonas Smedegaard] > > It is a violation of Debian Policy to mess with conffiles of other > > packages, and http://release.debian.org/sarge_rc_policy.txt section > > 3 adds this: > Debian policy section 10.7.4 (Sharing configur

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

[Jonas Smedegaard] > It is a violation of Debian Policy to mess with conffiles of other > packages, and http://release.debian.org/sarge_rc_policy.txt section > 3 adds this: Debian policy section 10.7.4 (Sharing configuration files) reads: The maintainer scripts must not alter a conffile of any

Bug#311188: debian-edu-config: Messes "programmatically" with conffiles of other packages

Package: debian-edu-config Severity: serious Justification: Policy 10.7.4 The (only?) purpose of debian-edu-config is to "tweak" the default install of other Debian packages. Extensions are added to the base-config package that messes with a bunch of conffiles based on debconf values. It is a vio