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

Re: /etc/mailname



Let stop the thread here.

I started it with a simple problem which is now solved with the manpage.

It was not clear to me that on a debian system a file can be not owned
by a package. 

I don't see a good reason for that but I can live with it.
You see only one reason : this is the way it is currently.

Christophe

On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 09:40:31PM -0500, Brian Mays wrote:
> 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.
> 
> christophe barbé replied:
> 
> > 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 ?
> 
> Sure.  Current practice is a fine example.  The current system works.
> Do you dispute that?
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Your opinion is irrelevant.  The truth is that Debian has several files
> (many of which are very important) that are "owned" by no package (i.e.,
> owned in the sense of showing up in the output of "dpkg -S").  In a
> sense, these packages can be considered to be owned by several packages
> or the entire system as a whole.
> 
> > 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 ?
> 
> So?  The reasonable solution is to add a man page.  That, IMHO, is doing
> the greatest service for the 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 can say the same of you.  After all, *you* are the one proposing a
> change.  The burden of advocacy is on you.  It is clear that things work
> perfectly well as it is.  Why should we change the way things are done?
> 
> The only "reason" you give is a silly demand that all files show up in
> the output of "dpkg -S".  Many developers, including myself, don't think
> that this is a sufficient reason, and besides, this could be
> accomplished by means other than providing an additional package
> containing a single conffile, which I might mention has no default
> content (i.e., it would need to be generated upon installation anyhow).
> 
> So, again I ask.  What useful purpose does this serve?
> 
> > > I have already addressed the problems with ownership above.
> 
> > You believe that you have addressed a problem that you have not even
> > described.
> 
> Okay.  I shall describe the problem now.  You are talking about a file
> that must be generated at install time.  Currently, this is done in
> several packages (and the installation procedure), but since this
> process is trivial, it can easily be coordinated between these packages.
> To change this as you propose, we shall have to (1) add a new package
> and (2) modify all of the existing packages that use this file to
> conform with policy.  These certainly are problems or, at least, they
> are an inconvenience.  What have we gained for this trouble?
> 
> - 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

Cats seem go on the principle that it never does any harm to ask for
what you want. --Joseph Wood Krutch

Attachment: pgpw9WfNGvrBk.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: