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

Re: /etc/mailname

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.

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 ?

> Finally, christophe barbé wrote:
> > Because I had in mind that on a debian system all files (except users
> > one) come with a package.
> 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

> > A few upgrades ago this file was changed and broke 'bug' and other and
> > It was not clear to me who was responsible for that.  there's no man
> > for this file so I logically go for the doc in the associated
> > package. ...
> Please note that "dpkg -S" is not documentation, and this is not a
> documentation issue.  If you feel that documentation is lacking, then
> you should write a man page for the file.  Don't make a separate package
> for it, however.  (Again, that would be silly.)  Instead, new pages such
> as this should be added to an existing package, such as "manpages",
> where they can be maintained as a group.

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 ?

> > 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 have already addressed the
> problems with ownership above.

You believe that you have addressed a problem that you have not even

> - 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

Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods.
Cats have never forgotten this. --Anonymous

Attachment: pgpIKVka6IMkE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: