[Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#527898: Bug#527898: unowned files after purge (policy 6.8)

[Holger Levsen]

reassign 527898 piuparts
retitle 527898 ignore file patters per package
thanks


<h01ger> vorlon, i tend to agree with your reply regarding sldap data&purge... 
it just feels wrong to ignore /var/lib/ldap unconditionally (though liw has 
done this for quite some patterns, see http://paste.debian.net/35669/) as it 
feels wrong (or maybe just work) to start collecting ignore-patterns on a 
package basis

<h01ger> vorlon, after taking a shower i came to the conclusion to reassign 
the bug to piuparts and indeed ignore /var/lib/ldap for the time being and 
add support for conditional exclusions later

paste.debian.net/35669 showed: 

        self.ignored_patterns = [
            "/dev/",
            "/etc/ssl/certs(/.*)?",
            "/lib/modules/.*/modules.*",
            "/usr/lib/python2\../site-packages/debconf.py[co]",
            "/var/lib/cvs(/.*)?",
            "/var/lib/dpkg/alternatives",
            "/var/lib/dpkg/triggers/.*",
            "/var/lib/maxdb(/.*)?",
            "/var/lib/onak(/.*)?",
            "/var/lib/papercut(/.*)?",
            "/var/log/exim/.*",
            "/var/log/exim4/.*",
            "/var/mail/.*",
            "/var/spool/exim/.*",
            "/var/spool/exim4/.*",
            "/var/spool/news(/.*)?",
            "/var/spool/squid(/.*)?",
            "/var/run/.*",
            "/var/www(/.*)?",
            "/tmp/scripts(/.*)?"
            ]

Maybe whitelist patters per package are overkill, maybe not. I will 
add /var/lib/ldap to self.ignored_patterns now and later come back to 
investigate whether whitelists per package are really worth it.


regards,
	Holger
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-openldap-devel/attachments/20090509/b48f0624/attachment.pgp>