Hi Ignace, On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 06:19:23PM +0200, Ignace Mouzannar wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:55, Jan Hauke Rahm <j...@debian.org> wrote: > > I'm not convinced your fix is the best way to go. Is iptotal unusable > > with apache2? I thought it would be better to support apache2 and > > perform better checks (however you do that) in post* for the web server > > reloads. Don't you think? > > As iptotal should work with other web-servers supporting CGI, I chose > to remove the automatic linking and reloading of apache's > configuration. > I find it "cleaner" to start the iptotal daemon, and let the user > enable the cgi samples that are shipped within the package, and reload > his webserver. What do you think about that?
On a second look at the package I found that this is probably the best aproach, yes. I would suggest mentioning such in a README.Debian file where you could also write about the files being moved around in postinst. But that's your call. As a user I would probably be confused if files moved from /var/www to /usr/lib to /var/lib. :) Also, I just saw postrm is empty basically. Please remove it. Hauke PS: No need to CC me, btw :)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
