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


>>>>> Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> 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

Reply to: