On 2012-10-03 23:58, intrigeri wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > Andreas Beckmann wrote (03 Oct 2012 09:49:30 GMT) : >> during a test with piuparts I noticed your package left unowned >> files on the system after purge. But the actual problem is that >> these files are created at all and in a FHS violating location. > > Thank you for reporting this issue. > It was already tracked in #657071. > > I want to merge these bugs, but let's clarify the severity first. > Please let me explain the problem, and ask for your opinion on > this matter. > > By default, metche uses mutt to send email; > by default, when run as root, mutt saves outgoing email to /root/sent.
so if root breaks *his* mutt configuration, installing metche will fail? > So, well, metche is not *directly* violating the FHS, but rather using > a program whose default settings were really meant for interactive > use, instead of being used by non-interactive tools such as metche. > > Do you think that this indirect FHS violation is RC? IMO any package that depends (directly or indirectly) on some specific state of /root/ (or ~root/) - or even changes its behavior depending on the content of /root (aka "uses configuration files that are not in /etc") is RC buggy. But we can take this discussion to debian-devel@ as there are more packages abusing /root in some way, e.g. creating /root/.gnupg/ (which would probably mean that they could/would also use anything in root's keyring for their configuration) or /root/.rnd (this is probably done by openssl if called from a maintainer script). Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
