Bug#624586: sasl2-bin: unowned files after purge (policy 6.8, 10.8)

Steve Langasek writes: > I don't think that /etc/shadow qualifies as a "configuration file", > either; I would call it "variable state information" (→ /var/lib), but > it lives in /etc because a) it has to be on the root filesystem, b) > that's where it's always been so moving it somewhere else w

Re: [PATCH] Specify policy for use of revision IDs in version numbers

Osamu Aoki writes: > This is another topic. I do not think everyone agreed yet to a > particular set of numbers. The more I looked into this issue, I think > followings are the possible numbers: > * package file name for normal uploads: 90 characters (must) >- rationale: UCS-2 requirement

Re: [PATCH] Specify policy for use of revision IDs in version numbers

Hi, On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 03:51:15PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ben Hutchings writes: > > > + > > + The upstream version number must not include a non-linear > > + revision ID or hash, since it cannot help in ordering > > + versions and it tends to result in very long

Re: [PATCH] Specify policy for use of revision IDs in version numbers

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 03:51:15PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ben Hutchings writes: > > > + > > + The upstream version number must not include a non-linear > > + revision ID or hash, since it cannot help in ordering > > + versions and it tends to result in very long versi

Bug#624586: Bug#618885: sasl2-bin: unowned files after purge (policy 6.8, 10.8)

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 03:49:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Steve Langasek writes: > > (If one wishes to argue that /etc/sasldb2 is not a configuration file, > > then it's also a policy violation for it to be under /etc.) > It's basically similar to /etc/shadow. I don't think that /etc/shad

Re: [PATCH] Specify policy for use of revision IDs in version numbers

Ben Hutchings writes: > + > + The upstream version number must not include a non-linear > + revision ID or hash, since it cannot help in ordering > + versions and it tends to result in very long version > + numbers and filenames. This information may be rec

Bug#624586: Bug#618885: sasl2-bin: unowned files after purge (policy 6.8, 10.8)

Steve Langasek writes: > (If one wishes to argue that /etc/sasldb2 is not a configuration file, > then it's also a policy violation for it to be under /etc.) It's basically similar to /etc/shadow. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCR

Re: [PATCH] Specify policy for use of revision IDs in version numbers

Ben Hutchings (30/04/2011): > --- > This is based on recent discussions on debian-devel. There was not > complete agreement, but I believe this reflects consensus. > > Ben. > > policy.sgml | 23 +++ > 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/pol

[PATCH] Specify policy for use of revision IDs in version numbers

--- This is based on recent discussions on debian-devel. There was not complete agreement, but I believe this reflects consensus. Ben. policy.sgml | 23 +++ 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 91173a5..2cc2d1e 100

Bug#624586: Bug#618885: sasl2-bin: unowned files after purge (policy 6.8, 10.8)

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:02:46PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Samstag, 30. April 2011, Steve Langasek wrote: > > 10.7.3: If the existence of a [configuration] file is required for the > > package to be sensibly configured it is the responsibility of the package > > maintainer to provide maint

Bug#624586: Bug#618885: sasl2-bin: unowned files after purge (policy 6.8, 10.8)

Hi Steve, On Samstag, 30. April 2011, Steve Langasek wrote: > 10.7.3: If the existence of a [configuration] file is required for the > package to be sensibly configured it is the responsibility of the package > maintainer to provide maintainer scripts which correctly create, update and > maintain

Bug#624586: Bug#618885: sasl2-bin: unowned files after purge (policy 6.8, 10.8)

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 05:15:09PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Freitag, 29. April 2011, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > Regardless, policy states the following in section 6.8: > > 5. The conffiles and any backup files (~-files, #*# files, %-files, > > .dpkg-{old,new,tmp}, etc.) are removed.