[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Making mutt more friendly towards site customizations

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 08:48:54AM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 07:36:14PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Dec 12, Richard Atterer <deb-devel@list.atterer.net> wrote:

> >  >source `test -e /etc/Muttrc.local && echo /etc/Muttrc.local || echo /dev/null`
> > I will accept to do such a thing only if we are going to do this for all
> > programs which have a configuration file.

> It has been requested for mutt.  It seems (to me) a very useful
> feature, and unlikely to break anyone's system (after all, it's a
> conffile). Sites often have local configuration issues for mail, I can 
> see my admins finding this useful.  It can be added to other packages
> which would benefit it when someone thinks of it.

The effect of having two config files for mutt (one a conffile and one
locally created) is the same as having a modified conffile.  But by
separating this information into two files, you're doing an end-run
around dpkg's normal handling of changed conffiles.  That's *bad*, and
encourages lots of admin-foot-shooting when one of the changes to
/etc/Muttrc conflicts in strange ways with what the admin has in

Debian's conffile handling isn't always the most convenient thing in the
world if you do frequent upgrades to unstable, but it's there for a
reason -- and it's a lot better than having the information hidden from
the admin.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgp1e1WeDgh47.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: