On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 09:27:30PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote: > > These users are using localepurge in the exact way the instructions say > > to. > > And now they're sufficiently warned IMHO.
So you can fix a critical bug by adding a warning to the package? Why did we add a Conflicts: tag, then, if you can just add a warning, and that's just as good? > > gij-3.0 should probably ignore the fact that update-alternatives is > > failing here, as hopefully post-Woody /usr/share/man that can be deleted > > with impunity. > > If you as a system administrator delete files belonging to a package, be it > through rm, localepurge or vi /dev/hda, you have no right to expect the > package to cope with that. As a theoritical matter, that's true. As a practical matter, a large number of users (5%, according to popularity-contest) are using this program, and this problem could be hidden by a one line patch. > localepurge is a hack. The proper solution to the problem localepurge > addresses would be to amend policy to specify which files / directories may > be removed from a package without the maintainer scripts tripping over the > removal. It's not a hack; it's the only solution. All the policy change will do legitamize it. It's fairly clear which directories will be effected - /usr/share/man and /usr/share/locale. > > If it is in the distribution, then it must work when used according to the > > instructions. > > The instructions now have a clear "here be dragons" in them. Again, adding a "here be dragons" to the instructions is a copout. There is no way to use localepurge without running the risk of breaking other programs. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side." - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
