Hi, (uhm.. I really hate it, if I can't hold the promises to myself I made; in this case: not further discussing it, but still here is another answer)
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 10:04:14AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Mon, Dec 07 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 11:47:11PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> >> In this particular case, what is the harm befalling the user? > >> > > >> > Well, I don't think that making an Operating System is just about > >> > keeping harm away from our users. > >> > >> But it is a tenet of software design that to change something > >> that is working, you have to have some justification beyond I wish > >> things were different. > > > > Making the software better, in this case. > > Again, you make an assertion, without any basis for it. Why is > it better, apart from the fact you seem to think it would be? What use > case is being negatively impacted? Yes, I do make an assertion. But not "without any basis". Its just not a basis that you accept. All boils down to the points where we disagree the most: - I consider data that is used *nowhere* as garbage. You think its not garbage, because you could use it some time in the future. - I consider ucf just a tool doing a certain duty on behalf of the package requesting it. For me this assumes that data created during this task belongs to the package that requested the creation of the data in the first place. And it includes providing an interface that does exactly what is it told to do. For you the data belongs to ucf and it can do with it whatever it wants to do. So if a postrm requested to purge the file from the database it would also be okay, if ucf didn't do that. Apart from this you made clear that you don't want to discuss your software design, because "its not my business". Good to know. I won't go further trying to change what I think is wrong. You as the ucf maintainer decided that collecting garbage is okay, because its not garbage in your opinion. Most other people agreed to that or didn't comment at all (including those persons who agree with me). It doesn't matter anyway. Its been a corner case from the beginning, a seldom one additionally. There is work on-going or at least planned to merge ucf functionality into dpkg, which is the better solution IMHO anyway and will probably fix my "problem". You won't change my mind. I will not change your mind. So to save us from discussing the topic to death, let us just agree to disagree, ok? Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
