On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 11:35:11AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Steve" == Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net> writes: > > Steve> On 15-Mar-02, 20:59 (CST), Sam Hartman > Steve> <hartmans@debian.org> wrote: > > Steve> That's exactly what's happened. See bug 138484. Apparently > Steve> the suggestion that a user simply edit a file is now > Steve> considered insulting and against "the debian way", even > Steve> though that ability to modify is considered one of the core > Steve> benefits of free software. I'll note that the other > Steve> respondent to this thread came up with the same suggestion. > > No, it's more that if the feature is wanted by enough people you > should probably provide a better way to do it than relying on > conffiles. The issue is that conffiles present a fairly ugly UI and > that if the user needs justify it, a better UI should be provided. > > I like to think of conffiles as a great solution to all the > configuration choices that I'm not going to think of but that one or > two people want. It is important at least to me to make sure that the > vas majority of users of my packages do not need to edit conffiles. > > If your explanation is that you don't think the feature is worth the > complexity of maintaining, then first I'll note that is your call to > make. Secondly, it seems like a reasonable call in this case. > I can live without this 'feature' which seems really easy to maintain and make sense (why not a separate cron script for checksecurity ?). What I don't really appreciate is when a bug is closed without reason to do it. IMHO the bug should stay with a wishlist severity and eventually tagged wontfix by the packager. And btw I think that the 'cut and past' solution (which is the reason behind the bug closing) is a bad one. It will break as soon as checksecurity change in the cron package script and before this happen I will loose the benefit of bug fixes and new features if I don't check the diff between my modified conffile and the new one for each upgrade. This remembers me a previous life where '--nodeps --force' was an important option and each upgrade comes with a few things to fix. Steve if you want to make me happy (why not?): . reopen the bug and tag it wontfix or . split the standard file And I appreciate your work that's why I want to use it without reimplementing parts of it to use it in my not so uncommon usage. Christophe > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > -- Christophe Barbé <christophe.barbe@ufies.org> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E L'experience, c'est une connerie par jour mais jamais la même.
Attachment:
pgpt9YOhmeQna.pgp
Description: PGP signature