Package: lintian Severity: wishlist On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 03:13:42PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 08:07:27PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:44:38PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > Here is a list of packages that fail when all packages except essential > > > ones, apt and debfoster wxhere removed, but didn't fail when all > > > important&required packages were kept. This indicates a missing > > > dependency on an important or required package, and is considered an RC > > > bug. > > > Packages from the list above were removed from that list, so all of them > > > should be RC bugs (pending confirmation from the release team, of course). > > > > Here some preliminary investigation of these to give a better feel > > for the reasons behind the failures. > > The package needs to check for the existence of the dependency before making > use of it, right? Please detect the unconditional use of debconf, adduser, update-inetd, etc inside "purge" conditional or case, or at the top of a script, before conditionals or cases.
> This is at least true for the "debconf" errors; since "debconf is a cache", it > isn't useful to fail when the cache has already been removed. I guess this is > why some packages use: Please also detect this: > > . /usr/share/debconf/confmodule || true > They should really use > > f=/usr/share/debconf/confmodule > [ ! -e $f ] || . $f; > For the "adduser" errors, it might be reasonable to intentionally fail, as a > mechanism to alert the admin that "the user hasn't and can't be removed". > Same > for update-inetd. Is that the intent? > Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
