Re: design issues in debian packages

[Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@linpro.no>]

(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.