Re: unused parameters passed to maintainer scripts

2009-10-26 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: > Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >>> But some of people-written snippets have, often doing it wrong. >> >> Can you point to some examples? Have you filed bug reports? > I filed #552389, a good example (IMO) of confusing due to complexity. There

Re: unused parameters passed to maintainer scripts

2009-10-26 Thread Eugene V. Lyubimkin
Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> But some of people-written snippets have, often doing it wrong. > > Can you point to some examples? Have you filed bug reports? I filed #552389, a good example (IMO) of confusing due to complexity. There are plenty of packages that do checks of parameters that

Re: unused parameters passed to maintainer scripts

2009-10-26 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: > 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, n

Re: unused parameters passed to maintainer scripts

2009-10-26 Thread Eugene V. Lyubimkin
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-fav

Re: unused parameters passed to maintainer scripts

2009-10-26 Thread Manoj Srivastava
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

Re: unused parameters passed to maintainer scripts

2009-10-26 Thread Eugene V. Lyubimkin
Guillem Jover wrote: > What'd be the point of doing that? For example, simplicity. > 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 al

Re: unused parameters passed to maintainer scripts

2009-10-25 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 00:12:24 +0200, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: > I've done a small research against maintainer scripts from all binary packages > from sid distribution and discovered that some parameters which are passed to > maintainer scripts are not used at all, specifically: > > - in-fa

unused parameters passed to maintainer scripts

2009-10-25 Thread Eugene V. Lyubimkin
Hello developers, I've done a small research against maintainer scripts from all binary packages from sid distribution and discovered that some parameters which are passed to maintainer scripts are not used at all, specifically: - in-favour (prerm, postinst) - for sure; - removing (prerm, pos