On Fri Apr 18, 12:54pm -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> On 18 Apr 2003 11:55:09 -0400, > >> Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org> said: > > > So, opinions? Yeah, it's kind of gross. But the way things are > > now is far worse. > > As long as /etc/conffiles/managed, /etc/conffiles/unmanaged, > and /etc/conffiles/default are never themselves unmanaged, this would > work. And the factory default for /etc/conffiles/default should be > managed; and the other two files should be empty. > > If we standardize on a easy to interpret format for these > files, I'll add the logic to ucf to handle these directives. (how > about a configuration file path per line for /etc/conffiles/managed > and /etc/conffiles/unmanaged, and /etc/conffiles/default contain a > single word, which is "managed" by default; anything other than > "unmanaged" is interpreted as "managed?). Something else worth thinking about, which I was gonna throw in my example package for all this stuff, is config-file-change priority. ie: It would be nice to differentiate between "the entire config format has changed, I will break completely if the old one is used", "some parameter options have changed; the old ones will still work - for now", "I just changed some defaults, keep what they have now", and "I fixed a typo in one of the documentation comments." We could then respect things like DEBCONF_PRIORITY, and not bother the user if all we've changed is the spelling of a descriptive (ie: not example) word in a comment. Pet peeve of mine in dpkg conffile handling :)
Attachment:
pgpOTWcwykkgi.pgp
Description: PGP signature