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

the XFree86 packages' UCF-like approach to configuration files (was: Bug#224828: Split config file is worrying...)

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:30:43PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Cameron Patrick <cameron@patrick.wattle.id.au> wrote:
> > Hmm, that's a good point.  The way X does it is to have XF86Config-4
> > /not/ listed as a conffile, but instead create it in the postinst and
> > provide conffile-like handling for it (i.e. by always preserving user
> > changes in it).
> [...]
> I see. You misunderstood me. The way Branden chose for X and the
> thing I offered (exim4.conf.template) are completely different things:
> * OTOH afaik the X11 packages use an ucf-like[2] approach, dexconf
> generates the file and the md5sum is saved, next time the dexconf
> scripts run (upgrade or dpkg-reconfigure) first it is checked whether
> the saved md5sum matches, if it does not the file won't be touched,
> otherwise it will be overwritten by dexconf and the new md5sum is
> saved.[3]


> I won't explain the pros and cons of either approach here unless
> somebody asks for it.

Please let me know what cons you see in my approach.

> [2] It is not ucf, afair there is no dpkg-like prompting if you edited
> the file.


> [3] I might be misrepresenting it as I am still using woody's X11 and
> have direct experience with the sarge or sid packages.

No, you were accurate in your description.

I will note that ucf/dpkg-style prompting could be added to my approach,
and I've considered doing it, possibly after sarge releases.  I'd use
debconf for such prompts, of course.

G. Branden Robinson                |    I had thought very carefully about
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    committing hara-kiri over this, but
branden@debian.org                 |    I overslept this morning.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    -- Toshio Yamaguchi

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: