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 view. > > > 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 described. > > - 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:
pgpIz7buDvq9X.pgp
Description: PGP signature