On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 09:34 +0200, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 09:39:20PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 20:51:24 +0200, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> >
> > > The version in squeeze added a line to /etc/profile (which is a policy
> > > violation). The version currently in wheezy removes that line. If this
> > > last
> > > part is removed from the postinst, the line remains in /etc/profile
> > > (where it
> > > never should have been). Removing the line in the postinst of the package
> > > in
> > > wheezy is a policy violation. Which is preferable:
> > > - leaving the line in /etc/profile and having a package in wheezy that
> > > has no
> > > policy violations
> > > - having a package in wheezy that violates policy, but that cleans up the
> > > changes caused by the policy violation in squeeze
> > >
> > The latter, IMO.
>
> The attached patch (against the version in wheezy) should do just that.
Thanks for this.
-Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, openbsd-inetd | inet-superserver, perl | perl5
+Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, openbsd-inetd | inet-superserver, perl | perl5,
update-inetd, libdpkg-perl
These aren't explicitly mentioned in the changelog.
+# cleanup edits from versions before 2.1b.20080616-5.2
+# this can be removed after wheezy
+if (($ARGV[1] ne "") &&
+ (version_compare($ARGV[1],"2.1b.20080616-5.2") < 0)) {
Is it worth checking this? If there happens to be a new upload that
makes in to wheezy then running the cleanup in any case doesn't seem
that bad.
+ # delete /etc/services with only 1 line created by previous versions of
+ # sendfile
Did that really happen? People actually remove either /etc/services or
netbase? (I guess maybe on embedded systems, but do they generally have
Python?)
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
