On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:41:23 +0100 (CET) Santiago Vila <sanv...@unex.es> wrote: > In either case, packages modifying this file should leave it in the > same state as before, be it the default from base-files, or the default > from another package that also modified the file before, so I don't > see how adding the line by default would help at all.
It would solve the question "Which package is responsible for removing that line from /etc/nsswicth.conf?" with "NONE." This action is problematic if there is more than one package using/adding/modifying this line. Knowing that there should be a sudoers line by default, the first one would add it if it were missing but should not attempt to remove it any time later. This and other packages would still modify the content of that line (adding and removing their bits as needed), and once all were removed, the line would remain in its default configuration. I'm running into problems with "leaving /etc/nsswicth.conf modified after purge" in piuparts. There I recently added a workaround for the removal of the gshadow line - base-files only replaces a pristine nsswitch.conf, so I saw a lot of failures if some mdns package was involved in the upgrade test, while it is not part of the upgrade of a minimal chroot which serves as reference. (The modification was the existence of the gshadow line, the mdns packages had cleaned up the hosts line carefully to restore initial state.) Not sure if base-files should attempt to delete this line (if the line was unmodified) from an otherwise modified nsswitch.conf. Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
