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] Correct. > 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. Correct. > [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