Le Jeu 23 août 2007 15:34, Patrice Dumas a écrit : > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:14:45PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> >> Le Jeu 23 août 2007 12:58, Patrice Dumas a écrit : >> >> > Ok, I didn't understood it that way. But it isn't true, the >> guidelines >> > are setup such that having no ownership of a directory is >> impossible. >> >> I'm not so sure. The lax guidelines are more ambiguous, at no time >> do >> they clearly say "every directory must be owned" (with single or >> multiple owners). They say "the rule of thumb is everything must be > > Indeed. It would be much more clearer if there was, in addition to all > the explanations, a simple sentence saying, maybe as a conclusion of > all > the examples: > > "In any case there should never be any unowned directory appearing > after > a package uninstall." Who can add this ? -- Nicolas Mailhot
