Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:00:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:36:01 +0200, Denis Barbier <barbier@linuxfr.org> said:
>
> > I wondered whether this use of ucf is safe. If postinst fails for
> > any reason, and package is reconfigured, the backup file is
> > overwritten. An alternative is to abort postinst if -old already
> > exists, and to remove it when postinst finishes. Isn't this safer?
>
> Well, I don't use proftpd, and I have blown away the downloaded
> package. Lets see.
>
> From what I recall, you had a single function where the
> configuration file was replaced, and that used ucf. Let us handle the
> trivial cases first
[snip]
> Can you postulate qa scenario where ucf would cause user data
> to be lost?
No, your analysis looks fine to me, thanks.
I am now convinced that ucf is a great tool to manage configuration
files, I hope it will support asking questions via debconf very soon.
Denis
Reply to: