On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 03:13:42PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > For the "adduser" errors, it might be reasonable to intentionally fail, as a > mechanism to alert the admin that "the user hasn't and can't be removed". > Same > for update-inetd. Is that the intent?
Hmm, I would read policy in a way that since a package can not rely on its dependencies being present during purge, their pure absence alone should not be a valid reason to fail. If this on the other hand is a valid excuse to leave cruft behind is not really clear to me. I would certainly prefer the package just printing a warning and exiting normal rather than failing but I can't really point out a specific policy reference right now to make this more than a personal preference. Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
