Bug#345651: Advices, comments? Bug#345651: passwd package should be essential?
pe, 2006-01-06 kello 18:38 +0100, Christian Perrier kirjoitti: > From: Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > There are several things in the package that one might > want to run from one of the maintainer scripts from > debconf, like useradd, groupadd, userdel, ... Is there a problem with packages that need stuff from passwd simply depending on passwd? -- Fundamental truth #4: Typing URLs always introduces errors. Always copy +paste. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#345651: Advices, comments? Bug#345651: passwd package should be essential?
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 06:38:47PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > I tend to agree with Kurt opinions below and thus, I'm tempted to make > passwd "Essential: yes". The opinions in the shadow package > maintenance team slightly vary. > However, given that this is an important decision, I think it is a > good idea to get the advice of fellow developers. So, please > comment It's not just a good idea, it's the Policy (3.8). For my part, I think this sounds like a bad idea. We should be very sparing in our use of the Essential: yes flag; I think we really should not be using it *except* for packages that we require to be functional when in an unconfigured state. The passwd package certainly doesn't qualify in this regard. Making the package Essential just to cover other packages' failure to depend on it while it was virtually-essential also seems dodgy; btw, it wasn't virtually-essential in woody, so packages really shouldn't have had a chance to get too buggily accustomed to having it around. > So why do I think passwd needs to be essential? > There are several things in the package that one might > want to run from one of the maintainer scripts from > debconf, like useradd, groupadd, userdel, ... First, I can't see any reason why you would want to call these commands from a *config* script; that smells of abuse to me. Second, assuming there is a reason to ever call one of these commands from the debconf script, standard procedure for any non-essential .config dependency is to check for the executable and defer configuration to the postinst if it's not yet unpacked. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#345651: Advices, comments? Bug#345651: passwd package should be essential?
I tend to agree with Kurt opinions below and thus, I'm tempted to make passwd "Essential: yes". The opinions in the shadow package maintenance team slightly vary. However, given that this is an important decision, I think it is a good idea to get the advice of fellow developers. So, please comment (asking the -ctte is probably not worth it unless the discussion shows that nothing really clear shows up). - Forwarded message from Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 16:09:04 +0100 From: Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Pkg-shadow-devel] Bug#345651: passwd package should be essential? Reply-To: Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: passwd Version: 1:4.0.13-7 Severity: important Hi, I'm wondering if the passwd package should be essential or not. And I want to start with quoting some relevant portions of the policy: 3.5. Dependencies [...] Packages are not required to declare any dependencies they have on other packages which are marked `Essential' (see below), and should not do so unless they depend on a particular version of that package. [...] 3.9.1. Prompting in maintainer scripts [...] Packages which use the Debian Configuration management specification may contain an additional `config' script and a `templates' file in their control archive[2]. The `config' script might be run before the `preinst' script, and before the package is unpacked or any of its dependencies or pre-dependencies are satisfied. Therefore it must work using only the tools present in _essential_ packages.[3] [...] 7.2. Binary Dependencies [...] `Depends' [...] The `Depends' field should also be used if the `postinst', `prerm' or `postrm' scripts require the package to be present in order to run. Note, however, that the `postrm' cannot rely on any non-essential packages to be present during the `purge' phase. = Currently, you can perfectly remove passwd since it's not essential, and nothing essential has a dependency on it. Bash used to have a dependency on passwd, but this was removed in 3.1-1, and was replaced by one on debianutils because of #208514. And debianutils is essential. I believe a better packages for that would have been base-passwd. So, passwd was virtually essential because bash had a dependency on it, but now it doesn't anymore. So why do I think passwd needs to be essential? There are several things in the package that one might want to run from one of the maintainer scripts from debconf, like useradd, groupadd, userdel, ... Kurt ___ Pkg-shadow-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-shadow-devel - End forwarded message - -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#345651: passwd package should be essential?
Package: passwd Version: 1:4.0.13-7 Severity: important Hi, I'm wondering if the passwd package should be essential or not. And I want to start with quoting some relevant portions of the policy: 3.5. Dependencies [...] Packages are not required to declare any dependencies they have on other packages which are marked `Essential' (see below), and should not do so unless they depend on a particular version of that package. [...] 3.9.1. Prompting in maintainer scripts [...] Packages which use the Debian Configuration management specification may contain an additional `config' script and a `templates' file in their control archive[2]. The `config' script might be run before the `preinst' script, and before the package is unpacked or any of its dependencies or pre-dependencies are satisfied. Therefore it must work using only the tools present in _essential_ packages.[3] [...] 7.2. Binary Dependencies [...] `Depends' [...] The `Depends' field should also be used if the `postinst', `prerm' or `postrm' scripts require the package to be present in order to run. Note, however, that the `postrm' cannot rely on any non-essential packages to be present during the `purge' phase. = Currently, you can perfectly remove passwd since it's not essential, and nothing essential has a dependency on it. Bash used to have a dependency on passwd, but this was removed in 3.1-1, and was replaced by one on debianutils because of #208514. And debianutils is essential. I believe a better packages for that would have been base-passwd. So, passwd was virtually essential because bash had a dependency on it, but now it doesn't anymore. So why do I think passwd needs to be essential? There are several things in the package that one might want to run from one of the maintainer scripts from debconf, like useradd, groupadd, userdel, ... Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
