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

Re: Bug#150514: Uer maodifications _must_ bre preserved, even is a co-admin said otherwise a few releases ago

On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 12:07:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Steve" == Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:

>  >>>> This file is automatically generated by update-modules"

> 	I would like to add:
>    Please delete the line above if you do not want this file overwritten.

>  >> Please do not edit this file directly. If you want to change or add
>  >> anything please take a look at the files in /etc/modutils and read
>  >> the manpage for update-modules.

>  Steve> When Manoj was positing on IRC, the idea came up of using ucf
>  Steve> to manage /etc/modules.conf.  If that could be used to
>  Steve> successfully determine whether the user has made local changes
>  Steve> without modifying the first line, I think that's a great idea.

> 	Sure it can. My original bug report had such a mechanism --
>  one you had primed ucf, it would work. The problem here is that this
>  means that every single  package that deals with /etc/moudutils/blah
>  would need to depend on ucf, and use those incantations; and this,
>  apparently, is way too onerous.

My objection to this is that the ucf management should be handled by
update-modules directly, not by each maintainer script that currently
invokes it.  Not only would it make for less work now, it would make for
less work later if a bug shows up.

(I note that ucf is priority: optional, and modutils is priority:
required; however, I also note that ucf, which AIUI is a straightforward
shell script, has no dependencies at all, so there's no reason modutils
couldn't incorporate it directly if the modutils approved of this

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpqVlN_7Dy5U.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: