On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 07:22:30PM -0700, Dave Rawks wrote: > >This situation can never arise among Debian packages, because Debian > >policy stipulates that each configuration file has one and only one > >owning package. Supporting this for the benefit of third-party or local > >packages sounds like a wishlist bug to me.
> Well, if the policy stipulates that only a single package can own a > config file but /etc/exports is neither listed in the conffiles for > the package AND it isn't registered with UCF then it seems that the > package is non-compliant with that exact policy. No, "owning package" does not require that the package register the config file with ucf. This policy also covers other non-conffile config files. > To presume unique ownership of a configfile That's not a presumption. This is the Debian package that owns the config file. > then to improperly mark it as such Not improper. > then to exercise a heavy handed overwrite only to provide example > comments, It overwrites it only because by running ucf, you've claimed here that the contents of the exports file are pristine, i.e., that they're *not* local modifications by the admin. With appropriate uses of ucf, this would not have been silently overwritten. And nfs-kernel-server calling ucfr wouldn't have saved you from this anyway, because the documented standard use of ucf is to call ucfr *after* calling ucf; so a failure from ucfr would come too late to avoid updating /etc/exports. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
