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

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

On Monday 21 April 2003 04:24 pm, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Keegan Quinn wrote:
> > On Monday 21 April 2003 03:29 pm, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > > Am I missing something?
> >
> > Only the fact that, as Debian maintainer, you do not have the right to
> > decide which files Debian users may or may not edit.  Policy says they
> > can do as they like, regardless if you like it or your packages care for
> > their way, and you are not allowed to overwrite their actions.
> >
> > Now, am I missing something?
> Yes, lots.
> Only configuration files are protected as you say.  Conffiles are
> automatically protected by dpkg, but not all configuration files are
> conffiles.

So, you're saying that the texmf.cnf file in question is not a configuration 
file?  Section 11.7.1 from policy seems to say otherwise.  Maybe I'm 
seriously misreading something.  I didn't mean to bring conffiles or dpkg 
into this at all, but perhaps I missed some part of the discussion.

configuration file
A file that affects the operation of a program, or provides site- or 
host-specific information, or otherwise customizes the behavior of a program. 
Typically, configuration files are intended to be modified by the system 
administrator (if needed or desired) to conform to local policy or to provide 
more useful site-specific behavior. 

(I realize I don't need to point to policy as a stick to beat people with, et 
al.  I'm becoming a bit confused just following this thread, and am wondering 
where that happened, since the core issue seems straightforward..  If I am in 
need of more sleep, please point that out.)

 - Keegan

PS. I'm subscribed, no need for a Cc.

Reply to: