[I sent the following on Monday to debian-devel, but didn't receive any replies, so I thought I'd try debian-user. Thanks for any help.]
Hi, I'm not a developer, just a Debian user trying to track down a 'postinst' error in a package on a brand-new Woody install (very sparse, only base + ~10 additional packages). So, my question is: Does Debian policy have anything to say about the guarantee of existence of '/etc/ld.so.conf'. It's clear (from 'dpkg -L libc6') that libc6 does not include it (even though that's were it would appear it should exist, if Debian were to include it by default), and it also appears not to be an explicit 'conffile' [1]. I further searched the Debian Policy manual, but could not find an explicit statement on this issue. Not much on target turned up on the debian-devel list archive. My base Woody install does not have any '/etc/ld.so.conf', and I'm wondering where the appropriate bug should be filed. The package in question above assumes that '/etc/ld.so.conf' exists (tries to 'grep' it), and fails when it can't be found. Should the bug be filed against that package (maybe it should 'touch /etc/ld.so.conf' in the beginning of its 'postinst' script?), or maybe libc6 should include, at the least, a blank '/etc/ld.so.conf'? I'm interested in anyone's thoughts on this. Thanks so very much. Take care, Daniel [1] Reply by Joey Hess: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200106/msg01397.html -- Daniel A. Freedman Laboratory for Atomic and Solid State Physics Department of Physics Cornell University -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]