Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness
On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 13:54, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On 18 Apr 2003 11:55:09 -0400,
> >> Colin Walters <firstname.lastname@example.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?).
Yep, that's exactly the way I was thinking of it. Cool, I'm glad we're
on the same wavelength here. Having it in ucf will be a good first
step. In fact, ucf might be the logical place to keep this.
By the way, David B Harris has expressed interest in private mail to me
in tackling this problem too, hopefully he'll speak up here with his