Re: design issues in debian packages
(sorry about the late reply, holidays, you know :-)
Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org> writes:
> On 21 Dec 2001, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
>
> > I'd prefer a non-executable file to mean "disable". This makes it
> > possible to use 0 byte files only (execute bit means yes or no :),
> > although packages should not use this trick.
>
> But this won't work. The .$file has to exist in /etc, so it can be
> modified. It also must be a conffile. Which means it will exist
> AFTER the package has been removed, but not purged.
>
> So, this means it must be an executable, that checks for a file that
> exists in the package when it is installed.
Okay. I thought you'd install .$file in the post remove script. So
there will be a .$file for most every $file, then?
> > It's all very flexible and nice, but pretty complex and not very
> > intuitive for the enduser. It might help a little to call .$file
> > something more explicit like .disabled?.$file instead. (The question
> > mark may be a bad idea, though.)
>
> I don't find it at all complex.
Of course not, you came up with it :-)
My point is, a normal user will not have read a description of how
this works. He will find a .$file and have no idea why and how.
Making the filename more self-documenting would help, IMHO.
Kjetil T.
Reply to: