Re: obsolete conffiles: s/may/should/

2013-05-06 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 17:12 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > do we have an estimate (via piuparts ?) on how many packages are > failing to do that? piuparts does test for this, some stats: sid2experimental 23 testing2sid 12 squeeze2wheezy 209 squeeze2bpo2wheezy 36 lenny2squeeze 47 http://anonscm.

Re: obsolete conffiles: s/may/should/

2013-05-06 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 15:18:04 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > In policy section 10.7.3 Behavior, there is this sentence: > > Obsolete configuration files without local changes may be > removed by the package during upgrade. > > I would like to suggest that "may" be replaced with "

Re: obsolete conffiles: s/may/should/

2013-05-06 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Mon, May 06, 2013 at 03:18:04PM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit : > > In policy section 10.7.3 Behavior, there is this sentence: > > Obsolete configuration files without local changes may be > removed by the package during upgrade. > > I would like to suggest that "may" be replaced w

Processed: Merge #563601 and #412668.

2013-05-06 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > merge 412668 563601 Bug #412668 [debian-policy] Extend configuration file protection to symlinks Bug #563601 [debian-policy] debian-policy: discuss symlinks as conffiles Marked as found in versions debian-policy/3.7.2.2. Bug #412668 [debian-policy

obsolete conffiles: s/may/should/

2013-05-06 Thread Paul Wise
In policy section 10.7.3 Behavior, there is this sentence: Obsolete configuration files without local changes may be removed by the package during upgrade. I would like to suggest that "may" be replaced with "should". -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc