On mer, 2008-10-29 at 22:43 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > Hm, tricky. I think, in the first place, that a chance of the upgrade > failing, even if highly unlikely, is bad. If a user modified those > files, they'll be left with a broken system. Yep, agreed. > > Secondly, I think user changes should not be lost if at all possible. > The key here is that "not be lost" is not the same as "preserved and > providing the same functionality" (in this case, I mean). Yeah. And since those files shouldn't have been conffile in the first place, there's no real need to keep them safe *after* the upgade. > > So, I would suggest something similar to what you have: > > * modified files under /etc/splashy move (without changing name) to > a /etc/slpashy.bak directory (created by the maintainer script) > > * a note is left in README.Debian saying that modified files are to be > found there (I don't think this is worth of NEWS.Debian, given the > low chances of this happening). > > How does that sound? (I realize the scripts will become messier, so we > can also wait to see if other members of the release team --or other > developers-- have an opinion.) Yeah, sure it becomes messier in the maintainer scripts. Not sure either. Btw, this only concerns testing users. Stable doesn't have splashy moreblue orbit theme files nor any /etc/splashy. As 5.0.2 didn't reach testing, maybe a 5.0.3 without only the move from /etc/splashy to /etc/splashy.dpkg-bak could be ok? Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part