John Hasler wrote:
<shrug> In all my years using Red Hat Linux I never heard of such a thing. I don't understand why it should be necessary.Paul Gear writes:In rpm, they're typically not empty - they're full of interesting and useful comments, and potentially usable defaults.We are talking about files the contents of which are created by maintainer scripts. Other configuration files in Debian packages _are_ "full of interesting and useful comments and potentially usable defaults".
I know shorewall 2.0 as packaged for Debian has an empty /etc/shorewall, but why it shouldn't be full of sample config files containing lots of interesting comments I really don't know.
Or even better maybe, four shorewall packages - the current one being renamed shorewall-common and the others each depending on shorewall-common and having sample configurations for one interface, two (common gateway) three (like two but with DMZ).
this is not a comment directed at Shorewalll so much as I've picked a package with which I'm familiar, and which comes without config files it will need.
Iven where the developer finds it absolutely necessary to generate config files at install time, I don't see why there can't be (maybe empty, maybe entirely commented out) config files to replace. Apache has, for years, had empty config files with no more than comments saying, "Don't use this file."
-- Cheers John -- spambait 1aaaaaaa@computerdatasafe.com.au Z1aaaaaaa@computerdatasafe.com.au Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/