Re: Silly Packaging Problem
Bruce Sass a écrit :
> I will be so bold as to suggest...
> Synopsis: update-package [options] <command> <package>
> update-package [options] --add-files=<paths> <package>
> update-package [options] --remove-files=<paths> <package>
> update-package [options] --size=<absolute | [+|-]increment> <package>
> update-package [options] --field=<label>::<new-value> <package>
> - the usual useful stuff (help, version, verbosity, logging)
> - maybe an admin controlled "off" switch, just in case having a local DB
> which differs from the packaged one is a problem (implies a config file
> - automatic Installed-Size: updating, not always useful or accurate,
> maybe best left as a invocation only option because only the Maintainer
> knows for sure
--confile: add the file as a conffile. I'm not sure about this however.
I think that ucf is better for dynamic configuration files. But ucfr
should be enhanced to call update-package --add/--remove in this case.