Re: conffiles versus configuration files
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
Ian> I'm dismayed that this discussion is still going and that I'm
Ian> having to post. Here is my view (Dale is right, btw.):
Dismay seems the appropriate reaction, since obviously the
policy is so ambiguous that even the policy manger had trouble on
this point.
I fail to see why you think that this discussion should have
ended, since you have yourself in the past added to the confusion, in
the form of the packaging manual. In technical matters, personal
opinions count less than wordings of the standards being folowed.
Feel free to change your opinion, but do not express dismay when
people have been folowing what the standards say.
Also, the current policy document confuses configuration file
and conffile in some places (adding to the confusion). Fr example,
look at 3.5:
______________________________________________________________________
"...If a certain job has to be executed more frequently than `daily,'
the package should install a file `/etc/cron.d/<package-name>' tagged
as configuration file."
______________________________________________________________________
``Tagged'' as "configuration file"?
Again:
______________________________________________________________________
"... modified by the local system administrator.In
addition, they have to be registered as configuration file."
______________________________________________________________________
How does one ``register'' a configuration file? Does it not
imply "configuration file" == conffile?
Even the packaging manual says (2.2):
______________________________________________________________________
conffiles
This file contains a list of configuration files which are to
be handled automatically by dpkg (see Configuration file
handling, chapter 9). Note that not necessarily every
configuration file should be listed here.
______________________________________________________________________
Does this not give the impression that the set of
configuration files is a super set of the set of conffiles?
Since this is a part of dgpk, one assumed it was coming from the
horses mouth.
Again:
______________________________________________________________________
9.1 Automatic handling of configuration files by dpkg
A package may contain a control area file called conffiles. This file
should be a list of filenames of configuration files needing automatic
handling, separated by newlines.
______________________________________________________________________
If conffiles need not be configuration files, why does the
packaging manual keep affirming that they are?
Again:
______________________________________________________________________
4.2.23 Conffiles
This field in dpkg's status file contains information about the
automatically-managed configuration files held by a package. This
field should not appear anywhere in a package!
______________________________________________________________________
I submit, that Ian's opinions notwithstanding, the standards
followed by Debian do indeed indicate that conffiles are
configuration files. Show me one place in any Debian standard where
it says a conffile need not be a configuration file.
I understand that dpkg does not care what a conffile is, but
then, dpkg does not enforce policy either, and policy has some
restrictions on configuration files.
If you want to change it, discuss it here on the policy list,
and have the policy and packaging manuals amended.
I am sure there are other places that such confusion reigns.
manoj
--
"jackpot: you may have an unnecessary change record" message from
"diff"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: