Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?
- From: Henning Makholm <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 10:04:32 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com> ( Frank Küster's message of "Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:32:26 +0100")
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Scripsit Frank Küster <email@example.com>
> These variables can be changed by a configuration file, and some of them
> *must* be set. Now if a user refuses to accept the change that switches
> from VARTEXMF to TEXMFVAR (or TEXMFSYSVAR, actually), TeX can no longer
You seem to assume that the *only* way to get this change into the
file is to forcibly discard all of the sysadmin's local adaptations
and install a pristine upstream version of the conffile.
Why do you want to deny the sysadmin the opportunity to do the changes
He presumably did have a good reason to make the local adaptations he
did, and who are you do decree that his preferred method of solution
MUST be to redo all of his local adaptations by hand, instead of to
make the simple upstream change to one line in the file by hand?
Henning Makholm "It will be useful even at this
early stage to review briefly the main
features of the universe as they are known today."