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

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:09:38 +0100,
>> Mark Brown <broonie@sirena.org.uk> said: 

 > Sorry, I wasn't clear.  The current handling of texmf.cnf looks
 > reasonably sane to me - it's now not too dissimilar to how
 > /etc/modules.conf is handled.  What I was trying to say was that in
 > the past there were problems with the handling of some
 > configuration files in the tetex packages but that languages.dat
 > hadn't really registered as one that needed special treatment.

	Personally, I feel that one suboptimal design does not jsutify
 another; since both add to the cases that break the nice invariant
 that the admin may modify any file in /etc, and we do not mandate how
 the files are modified (if we can madate how conffiles may be
 modified, I would like to outlaw vim and mandate the one true editor
 to be used for all packages ;-) ;-)

	I strongly believe that the properties that all configuration
 files reside in /etc, and that the admin may edit any of these files
 at will (no linux conf, etc, and a required intermediary) were the
 one of the stronger attractions of Debian; and now these invariants
 are slowly being snipped away by the restrictions on modification of
 these files. 

	We may already be on the slippery slope, but we should not
 use that fact to accelerate our slide.

Blore's Razor: Given a choice between two theories, take the one which
is funnier.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: