Bug#417039: spfmilter: diff for NMU version 1.99+0.97-2.1
tags 417039 + patch thanks Hi, Attached is the diff for my spfmilter 1.99+0.97-2.1 NMU during the current BSP which I'll upload to delayed-0. -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D diff -u spfmilter-1.99+0.97/debian/changelog spfmilter-1.99+0.97/debian/changelog --- spfmilter-1.99+0.97/debian/changelog +++ spfmilter-1.99+0.97/debian/changelog @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +spfmilter (1.99+0.97-2.1) unstable; urgency=high + + * Non-maintainer upload during BSP. + * Fix unconditional use of deluser (Closes: #417039). + + -- Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun, 20 May 2007 16:04:55 +0200 + spfmilter (1.99+0.97-2) unstable; urgency=low * Add -L/usr/lib/libmilter to LDFLAGS to support libmilter0 - diff -u spfmilter-1.99+0.97/debian/postrm spfmilter-1.99+0.97/debian/postrm --- spfmilter-1.99+0.97/debian/postrm +++ spfmilter-1.99+0.97/debian/postrm @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ set -e -if [ $1 = purge ]; then +if [ $1 = purge -a -x /usr/sbin/deluser ]; then if id -u spfmilter /dev/null 21; then deluser --quiet spfmilter fi
Bug#417039: spfmilter: diff for NMU version 1.99+0.97-2.1
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 04:06:30PM +0200, Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Attached is the diff for my spfmilter 1.99+0.97-2.1 NMU during the current BSP which I'll upload to delayed-0. Thanks, I'd somehow missed this bugreport while preparing my last upload. I'll add your NMU to my copy of the tree. -- Mike Markley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion. - Harlan Ellison -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#417039: spfmilter: diff for NMU version 1.99+0.97-2.1
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. -- Mike Markley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#417039: spfmilter: diff for NMU version 1.99+0.97-2.1
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... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#417039: spfmilter: diff for NMU version 1.99+0.97-2.1
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]
Bug#417039: spfmilter: diff for NMU version 1.99+0.97-2.1
Mike Markley wrote: 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? Some people think it's better to leave all old users around as you never can be sure you removed all the files belonging to the user. So they think it's better to leave removing users to the sysadmin. Feel free to open a discussion about this on debian-devel... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
