Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:52:33 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda
<kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp> said:
> Now my understanding is;
> the new mechanism might be okay if it first checks whether
> texmf.cnf is an admin's file or a file generated by update-texmf
> before generating texmf.cnf and overwrites it only in the case
> it was a file generated by the script (for example, with the way
> of update-modules).
> Is this right?
Not quite. a) even if the file was generated by update-texmf,
and the user modified it later, the user changes *must* be
preserved. Secondly, You are missing the fact that you ought to ask
if the user wants your new file or not. We can't just leave the user
out in the cold if they have local modifications to the file.
dpkg sets the gold standard for both allowing the user a
chance to examine the changes, and have a choice about whether or not
they wish to accept the changes. And not just once, but every time
the maintainer script changes -- because this particular time the
change may be just enough to make me change my mind, one way or the
other.
So no, I don't think the behaviour described above is
optimal.
manoj
--
Wharbat darbid yarbou sarbay?
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <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
Reply to: