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

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 <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. 

I agree.

> 	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

Reply to: