On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:35:12PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > 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. In the case of adduser, there is a strong case for not doing deluser at *all* on purge, because it's impossible to ensure that there are no off-line or remote resources referencing the uid/gid. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
