On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 10:33:51PM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote: > > Sounds good. inetd-base might be a slightly better name, since it's > > something all the inetd implementations will depend upon (but packages > > /providing/ inetd fragments won't need to, since the TTBOMK file > > triggers happen transparently). This will mean these packages won't > > need to do anything except provide the config fragment.
> That's fine by me. I understand that renaming a pkg can be done transparently > (wrt rdepends) using replaces+provides+conflicts against update-inetd > (according to devref 5.9.3). In that case I'll use /etc/inetd.base.d instead > of /etc/inetd.conf.d > (I suppose it's OK to close bugs belonging to update-inetd from the changelog > of inetd-base) No, that would leave the bugs in an inconsistent state, still listed as being open in the update-inetd package but closed in another package that they aren't assigned to. Yet another reason not to rename the package. (And why is this discussion happening in a bug report against debian-policy? Please take this discussion to the debian-devel mailing list.) -- 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
