On Tuesday 16 June 2009 20:05:40 Russ Allbery wrote: > severity 533287 wishlist > thanks > > Sune Vuorela <report...@pusling.com> writes: > > There has recently on #debian-devel been a few discussions about > > wether it was allowed to edit other packages configuration files (not > > 'conffiles') in maintainer scripts. > > > > My interpretation of policy is that you are only allowed to edit other > > packages configure files thru a specific provided interface > > (e.g. update-inetd), and if a package don't offer such a interface, > > you aren't allowed. > > > > Some people seems to claim that you are allowed to do > > sed/cat/echo/perl magic on other packages configuration files in > > maintainerscripts if you really need it and there is no provided > > interface. > > > > I would like to get the wording clarified so that it is either fully > > permitted or, in my preference, clearly not allowed. > > What isn't clear about Policy right now?
To be honest, I also have a hard time seeing the issues, but after participating two days in a row debating this with different people in #debian-devel, I just thought that something must be unclear. I asked a bit, and a specific "should" the primary blame. > If it is desirable for two or more related packages to share a > configuration file and for all of the related packages to be able to > modify that configuration file, then the following should be done: That should over there -------------------------------> ^^^^ > * One of the related packages (the "owning" package) will manage the > configuration file with maintainer scripts as described in the > previous section. > > * The owning package should also provide a program that the other > packages may use to modify the configuration file. > > * The related packages must use the provided program to make any > desired modifications to the configuration file. They should > either depend on the core package to guarantee that the > configuration modifier program is available or accept gracefully > that they cannot modify the configuration file if it is not. (This > is in addition to the fact that the configuration file may not > even be present in the latter scenario.) so it seems that the "alternative" interpretation, is that "if there is a interface, then it must be used", but all that is wrapped in a "should", which is not as binding as a "must". > I'm not seeing how that could be made less ambiguous. It seems to me > that your position is clearly correct and Policy spells that out rather > explicitly. I will try get some of the others to add their comments here. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
