On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:35:00AM +0930, Paul Wise wrote: > On Nov 9, 2007 9:43 AM, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 09:35:05AM +0930, Paul Wise wrote: > > > postinst should use dpkg-statoverride instead of chown > > Really? I thought this was an administrator's tool, and the postinst > > should do something like > > I guess I meant "chowning blindly" instead of "chown". > > I do note that a few postinst files in my /var/lib/dpkg/info/ use > dpkg-statoverride rather than chown. > > I guess I should reread devref/policy. Policy mentions this in 10.9.1; it appears that it can be correct to do either dpkg-statoverride --update or use chown directly, as long as it's conditional on does dpkg-statoverride -l $f >/dev/null.
I note that using chown doesn't add the file to the override data, which I argue is a good thing due to no ambiguity about who put it there. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
