On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:01:19PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
>
> We've gone around this sort of argument several times since I've been
> involved with Debian, and the outcome has always seemed to be: do not
> throw away user data.
As this has already been discussed many times I don't want reop
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 03:23:54PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Mathias Gug writes:
>
> > Correct. That was a difference implemented in Ubuntu as the result of the
> > package review to move puppet into main [1]. It turns out that the review
> > points back to Debian bug 484659 which was fixed la
Mathias Gug writes:
> Correct. That was a difference implemented in Ubuntu as the result of the
> package review to move puppet into main [1]. It turns out that the review
> points back to Debian bug 484659 which was fixed later in Debian.
> [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/puppet/
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:15:27 -0500, Mathias Gug wrote:
> In Ubuntu we've applied the following patch:
> * debian/puppet-common.postrm:
> - On purge delete all puppet directories: /etc/puppet, /var/log/puppet and
> /var/lib/puppet.
>
> IIUC /var/lib/puppet isn't deleted when the puppet
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:48:44 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I've only used 0.24, which doesn't install anything in
> /etc/puppet/templates, so since I've not yet tried 0.25, I don't know the
> exact background.
Nothing in the package installs things in /etc/puppet/templates, this is
all admin-cont
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 02:48:44PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Mathias Gug writes:
>
> > Considering that puppet templates are stored under
> > /etc/puppet/templates/ purging the puppet-common package would *not*
> > remove the local templates. Upon package re-installation the old
> > templates
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 08:45:38AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
>
> Do the templates need to be in /etc/templates? I think that was a change in
> behaviour between the Ubuntu package and the Debian package.
>
Correct. That was a difference implemented in Ubuntu as the result of the
package revi
This one time, at band camp, Mathias Gug said:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 01:35:35PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Mathias Gug writes:
> >
> > > Agreed - that's the point of view of never ever delete a file created by
> > > the user. OTOH by purging a package one may want to start a new
> > > con
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 05:32:31PM -0500, Mathias Gug wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 01:35:35PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Mathias Gug writes:
> >
> > > Agreed - that's the point of view of never ever delete a file created by
> > > the user. OTOH by purging a package one may want to start a
Mathias Gug writes:
> Considering that puppet templates are stored under
> /etc/puppet/templates/ purging the puppet-common package would *not*
> remove the local templates. Upon package re-installation the old
> templates files would still be around - defeating the intent of purging
> a package
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 01:35:35PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Mathias Gug writes:
>
> > Agreed - that's the point of view of never ever delete a file created by
> > the user. OTOH by purging a package one may want to start a new
> > configuration from scratch in a well-known state (which means
Mathias Gug writes:
> Agreed - that's the point of view of never ever delete a file created by
> the user. OTOH by purging a package one may want to start a new
> configuration from scratch in a well-known state (which means that there
> aren't any files left over from a previous package installa
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:43:31PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Mathias Gug writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 04:16:29PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> This is arguably a Debian policy violation because it would delete any
> >> other local administrator configuration files in /etc/puppet.
>
Mathias Gug writes:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 04:16:29PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This is arguably a Debian policy violation because it would delete any
>> other local administrator configuration files in /etc/puppet.
> Could you specify which portion of the Debian policy deals with
> confi
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 04:16:29PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Mathias Gug writes:
>
> > + # Remove puppet directories
> > + rm -rf /etc/puppet/
>
> This is arguably a Debian policy violation because it would delete any
> other local administrator configuration files in /etc
Mathias Gug writes:
> + # Remove puppet directories
> + rm -rf /etc/puppet/
This is arguably a Debian policy violation because it would delete any
other local administrator configuration files in /etc/puppet. This should
be:
rmdir --ignore-fail-on-non-empty /etc/pup
Package: puppet-common
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu lucid ubuntu-patch
In Ubuntu we've applied the following patch:
* debian/puppet-common.postrm:
- On purge delete all puppet directories: /etc/puppet, /var/log/puppet and
/va
17 matches
Mail list logo
