hi guys, On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 08:16:45AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > Admittedly, this is a policy violation that bacula doesn't have compliant > > postrm scripts, but I'm not sure that it's a problem with dbconfig-common. > > Well, if the examples lead to broken packages, surely that's a bug?
yes... as i said i'm willing to accept the blame for it and a fixed
version is already in unstable. we'll probably need to mass bugfile
the other ~25 packages in question to make sure they do things
the new "Right Way".
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 08:28:14AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I'd like to see Bacula in etch too, but not with this bug. Remember that
> any user who hits this bug will suddenly find that apt-get, aptitude,
> etc. all no longer work, and will likely have no clue how to fix his/her
> system.
well etch is still some ways away from release time, so it isn't such
a big deal that it's not there now. only when the release team starts
making ruminations of a freeze is when we should be worrying.
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 08:06:18AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I am also concerned that Bacula seems to be getting singled out
> here. There must be dozens of other packages with the same exact issue
> as well. If it's good enough for, say, horde, why isn't it for Bacula?
i think it's a bit harder to find packages where this is the case. it
wouldn't be too hard to hack something like puiparts to do something
like:
- install the package and its deps
- remove the package into rcfiles state
- remove dependencies
- purge package
but i don't know that anyone has had the motivation to actually do so.
sean
ps - the bug assigned against dbconfig-common hasn't been cc'd for
much of this discussion, and the blocking is in the wrong direction.
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
