Bug#410903: xkb-data: configuration files have been moved to /usr/share
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> severity 410903 important
> thanks
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:37:42PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> I think that it is clear that these files actually are configuration
>> files. This has been discussed for example in #326637. Reading through
>> this bug, one gets the impression that everyone who spoke up agreed that
>> it makes sense, and is actually done, to customize these files (or maybe
>> rather, to add customization files in these directories, see below).
>
> Sorry, a file is not automatically accorded config file status just because
> someone wants to edit it.
I agree, and I've argued for that view myself, e.g. in #379089. The
reason why I reported this as RC is that I think there are in fact
configuration files among the moved files. If moving them back where
they belong is too dangerous for etch, why not tag it etch-ignore?
> I think that at least the .dir files ought to find their way back to
> /etc/X11/xkb to let users add their own configs, but I don't think this
> should be considered RC -- and that we are in fact better off not changing
> this for etch, given the risk of error.
(that sounds rather like you're granting etch-ignore, doesn't it?)
The risk of error is a point, whether it is wise to keep a regression
compared to sarge for a complete release, and only fix it in lenny is an
other one.
As I already said in the original bug report, adding documentation may
be an alternative, or may justify and etch-ignore tag - *at*least*
NEWS.Debian, but better a README.Debian which describes in detail how to
work around that regression (I've heard rumors about /etc/X11/Xmodmap
being supported already?).
Regards, Frank
--
Dr. Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Reply to: