>>>>> Thomas Goirand <email@example.com> writes:
> BTW, "conffiles" is a pretty bad name. It's confusing, as you can
> see once more.
> I thought about calling it "dpkg-conffiles" which has the advantage
> of underlying that we leave the handling of the file to the
> responsibility of dpkg, keeps the same old "conffiles" name. But
> people will continue to use the older short version of it, so...
> Anyone with a better idea?
umdekfiles, perhaps? (For “User modifies, dpkg keeps [the
changes.]”) At the very least, I don't think anyone with half
the sane mind will confuse them with “configuration files.”
FSF associate member #7257