Hi Francesco Op za, 30-09-2006 te 09:09 +0200, schreef Francesco Paolo Lovergine: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 07:13:28PM +0200, Arjan Oosting wrote: > > tag 388647 patch > > tag 375017 patch > > usertag 388647 supplied-patch > > usertag 375017 supplied-patch > > thanks > > > > Hi, > > > > I have prepared a NMU for these two bugs. As I am no DD I can not do the > > upload myself, but here is the patch anyway. > > > > Greetings Arjan > > > > #!/bin/sh -e > > > > -if [ "$1" = "purge" -o "$1" = "remove" ] > > +if [ "$1" = "remove" -o "$1" = "disappear" ] > > Don't do that. Removing of the user should be done on purge only, not > on a simple removing.
Which user? The postrm script does not remove any user It removes the registration of proftpd from inetd when the package is removed or completely overwritten. As in both cases proftpd is not installed anymore the entry can be removed from inetd's configuration as inetd can not start proftpd at that moment. > Also pcap support should be better managed at upstream > level and is a security concerned issue, did you try the patch not only for > building up, > but in run-time too? No I don't have a GNU/kFreeBSD machine, so I have not tested this. I used ntp as example package for this, which also can not use libcap on non linux architectures. I thought this was a simple patch to include in the NMU, but if you think it is inappropriate feel free to upload a new version which calls me stupid and removes this part again ;-) > BTW, a proper NMU is allowed only for RC bugs, else > patches to merge to the maintainer tree suffice. I am sorry, I did not want to step on your toes. It seemed like a simple patch to included as an upload was done anyway. Greetings Arjan
signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
