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

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

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 11:40:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:31:10 +0200, Denis Barbier <barbier@linuxfr.org> said: 
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:15:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Over writing user changes is a violation of policy. Asking users if
> >> it is ok with them if we violate policy is not good enough.
> > [...]
> 	Perhaps I should elucidate. In the cxontext of this thread, it
>  was obvious to me that we are talking about a one time question
>  whether or not is is OK to always overwrite configuration files
>  forever more, which causes user changes to be silently lost from that
>  point on. 

Right, thanks for clarifying.
It can also be achieved with debconf, by marking the question as not
already seen if files differ, but I believe that nobody does this.

> 	Oh, I downloaded proftpd, and on first glance, the postinst
>  seems to do the right thing. Nice style too ;-)

I wondered whether this use of ucf is safe.  If postinst fails for any
reason, and package is reconfigured, the backup file is overwritten.
An alternative is to abort postinst if -old already exists, and
to remove it when postinst finishes.  Isn't this safer?


Reply to: