On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 09:18 +0200, Matthijs Mohlmann wrote:
> 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? :)
>
> That's true. I think that is something for after the release of squeeze.
Ok. Please go ahead with the upload to unstable.
Regards,
Adam
--
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/1282071380.8293.41.ca...@kaa.jungle.aubergine.my-net-space.net
