* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 03:12]: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:35:12PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > >> 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. > > This is something that I'd really like to see us sort out in policy, since > I think we should be able to describe consistent behavior with regard to > system users and package purging to our users. Right now, every > maintainer is making their own decision in this area, and I think that > provides an inferior experience for users.
Agreed. Marc Haber started a wiki page summarizing reasons pro and contra and issues, http://wiki.debian.org/AccountHandlingInMaintainerScripts Perhaps we can use that page some day in future to put something in policy. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
