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

Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness

>> On 18 Apr 2003 11:55:09 -0400,
>> Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org> said: 

 > So, opinions?  Yeah, it's kind of gross.  But the way things are
 > now is far worse.

	As long as /etc/conffiles/managed, /etc/conffiles/unmanaged,
 and /etc/conffiles/default are never themselves unmanaged, this would
 work. And the factory default for /etc/conffiles/default should be
 managed; and the other two files should be empty. 

	If we standardize on a easy to interpret format for these
 files, I'll add the logic to ucf to handle these directives. (how
 about a configuration file path per line for /etc/conffiles/managed
 and /etc/conffiles/unmanaged, and /etc/conffiles/default contain a
 single word, which is "managed" by default; anything other than
 "unmanaged" is interpreted as "managed?).

...computer hardware progress is so fast.  No other technology since
civilization began has seen six orders of magnitude in
performance-price gain in 30 years. Fred Brooks, Jr.
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: