Let stop the thread here. I started it with a simple problem which is now solved with the manpage. It was not clear to me that on a debian system a file can be not owned by a package. I don't see a good reason for that but I can live with it. You see only one reason : this is the way it is currently. Christophe On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 09:40:31PM -0500, Brian Mays wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 11:38:32AM -0500, Brian Mays wrote: > > > > > Which doesn't mean that it wouldn't be useful if it were so [except > > > > where it doesn't make sense of course]. > > > > Usefulness must be balanced with practicality. When considering a > > > configuration file that is used by a library, which is used by several > > > applications, it makes sense that the configuration file is owned by > > > the package containing the library. To add an entire package for a > > > lone configuration file, simply so that "dpkg -S" returns a result, is > > > silly. > > > > Making a file such as this a conffile means that one package now > > > owns the file, and thus, no other package can modify it in its > > > packaging script. > > christophe barbé replied: > > > And ? It seems pretty reasonnable that only one package manage this > > file. Do you have an example where this file needs to be modified by > > more than one package ? > > Sure. Current practice is a fine example. The current system works. > Do you dispute that? > > > > Well, as you have discovered, you were incorrect. Don't worry, it > > > is a common misconception. > > > What you call 'common misconception' was a feature from my point of > > view. > > Your opinion is irrelevant. The truth is that Debian has several files > (many of which are very important) that are "owned" by no package (i.e., > owned in the sense of showing up in the output of "dpkg -S"). In a > sense, these packages can be considered to be owned by several packages > or the entire system as a whole. > > > I agree that a manpage could be packaged with others. > > > When there's no manpage, users search in the package files. You can > > try to forget it, but this is a fact. > > Is this a distribution for users ? > > So? The reasonable solution is to add a man page. That, IMHO, is doing > the greatest service for the users. > > > > > I would said : what is it with "NOT owning stuff"? Why not a package > > > > like the proposed mta-common ? > > > > Why not? Because it is not necessary. > > > Funny. You have so much great reasons. > > I can say the same of you. After all, *you* are the one proposing a > change. The burden of advocacy is on you. It is clear that things work > perfectly well as it is. Why should we change the way things are done? > > The only "reason" you give is a silly demand that all files show up in > the output of "dpkg -S". Many developers, including myself, don't think > that this is a sufficient reason, and besides, this could be > accomplished by means other than providing an additional package > containing a single conffile, which I might mention has no default > content (i.e., it would need to be generated upon installation anyhow). > > So, again I ask. What useful purpose does this serve? > > > > I have already addressed the problems with ownership above. > > > You believe that you have addressed a problem that you have not even > > described. > > Okay. I shall describe the problem now. You are talking about a file > that must be generated at install time. Currently, this is done in > several packages (and the installation procedure), but since this > process is trivial, it can easily be coordinated between these packages. > To change this as you propose, we shall have to (1) add a new package > and (2) modify all of the existing packages that use this file to > conform with policy. These certainly are problems or, at least, they > are an inconvenience. What have we gained for this trouble? > > - Brian > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > -- Christophe Barbé <christophe.barbe@ufies.org> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Cats seem go on the principle that it never does any harm to ask for what you want. --Joseph Wood Krutch
Attachment:
pgp4KRFzV0pkQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature