Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness
>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 14:07:04 +0100,
>> Matt Ryan <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Personally I use the ask-about-overwrite question in debconf
> because the last time this thread came up the only sensible
> solution was put forward in the attached email. Now, I'm all for a
> better solution when it is determined what that is, *but* I'm not
> for a witch hunt based on what was seen to be previous best
I'm sorry that all of us can't participate in all the
discussions on -devel, and some times the optimal solutions are not
reached. But when these solutions were starting to get implemented, I
did point out the policy violations, and even filed a few serious
bugs about them. I did not have the time or the energy then to do
Around the same time, ucf was written to allow one to manage a
configuration file, allowing one to generate configuration files on
the fly, and still afford the user changes dpkg like protection.
In any case, pointing to an old discussion on -devel is not a
justification for not preserving user changes. Asking the admin
whether one may violate Debian policy ought not to be a license to do
as one wishes.
Secondly, this isnot a witch hunt. What is being done is that
a policy violation in older practice is being pointed
out. Alternatives are being discussed; a witch hunt would have
involved mass RC bug filings.
Debconf did not suddenly give people a reason to not preserve
user changes; amd we had already rejected destruction of user changes
before (one could have written a mainainter script in 1995 that asked
the user once, populated a file in /var/lib/, and forever destroyed
user changes, way before debconf).
Pardon this fortune. Database under reconstruction.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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