On Aug 17, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 17:03 +0200, Matthijs Mohlmann wrote:
>> On Aug 14, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 23:44 +0200, Matthijs Möhlmann wrote:
>>> + # TODO: Now we are doing something that is not allowed by
>>> policy but it
>>> + # has to be done.
>>> + sed -i -e "s|^SLAPD_CONF=.*|SLAPD_CONF=\"${SLAPD_CONF}\"|"
>>> /etc/default/slapd
>>>
>>> That comment immediately make me think "uh oh", although I don't
>>> currently have a better alternative to suggest that wouldn't leave
>>> people with a broken system after the upgrade.
>>>
>> A broken system is worse then a policy violation in this case. A solution to
>> this problem is to move the etc/default/slapd file to usr/share/slapd and let
>> ucf handle this.
>
> Would this not just replace the policy violation with giving users the
> chance to break their own system by rejecting the proposed update to the
> configuration? :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Adam
That's true. I think that is something for after the release of squeeze.
Regards,
Matthijs Möhlmann
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/c9c01343-ed0b-432a-9847-05b00a450...@cacholong.nl
