On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:43:00AM +0200, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Markley wrote: > > On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:34:40AM +0200, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> Mike Markley wrote: > >>> Upon further inspection, this doesn't actually fix the core issue, which > >>> is that the postinst and postrm scripts require adduser/deluser. IMO, > >>> the best solution is a Depends: on adduser. I'll prepare an upload. > >> Which I also added in my NMU... > > > > The only files touched in the patch you sent were changelog and postrm; > > did I miss something? > > Yes, that you already have a dependency on adduser.
You're right; I've clearly misunderstood the problem. I see the part of policy that makes this an RC bug. What I'm curious about are best practices for a solution: is the correct behavior in that circumstance really to leave old users lying around? How have others approached this? -- Mike Markley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
