Hi,
On Sonntag, 24. April 2011, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 09:51:17AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Samstag, 23. April 2011, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > > This is not a bug.
> >
> > Yeah, right. It's not a bug because you dont care about policy which says
> > you must purge the package on purge.
>
> Yes well, I'm sure you would appreciate it if, for example, purging
> postgresql also removed /var/lib/postgesql. I would not appreciate it,
> that much is for certain. That is, unless I specifically told the
> package that it was OK to do so.
>
> But then again, I guess you decided not to read the rest of my email
> where I point out that the adminitrator is *asked just such a question*
> in the case of /etc/sasldb2.
I read it. And think its wrong.
> > I'm glad most of the 18000 source packages respect policy.
>
> And this one does respect policy. It is only when it cannot obtain an
> answer from the admin on the disposition of /etc/sasldb2 that it errs on
> the side of caution and leaves the file untouched.
I think every package should err on the side of policy. If you think policy
should be different, go and try to change policy.
> The admin can always
> trivially remove it later. Restoring the file may not be so
> straightforward.
not purging in the first place is very simple. and, "the trivial way to remove
it later" is, doh, to purge, not to remove. bingo.
cheers,
Holger
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
