Re: less hard coded config files
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 19-06-2005 22:44, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Jonas Smedegaard]
>
>>I believe the "bigger" issue you describe is "upgrades being forced
>>interactive", asking annoying questions about what to do with
>>conf(ig)files changed at initial install by debian-edu.
>
>
> Right. Then we talk past each other. I'm talking about the problems
> people encounter if they modify a configuration file in debian, and
> then later upgrade the package only to discover that they are
> presented with an "annoying questions" where they can chooce between
> keeping the config they want in a format no longer understood by the
> program, or replacing the config they want with a default file
> understood by the program, but not having the configuration they want.
>
> I expect upgrades to keep my configuration, and not present me with an
> impossible question, where neither of the two options presented are
> any good to me.
>
> This is broken upgrades to me.
I want the slapd package to buy me some chocolate. It doesn't, so the
package is broken. Nahh.
If the package maintainer choose to handle issues of "current config
file is different from both old and new pristine ones, so what to do?"
by presenting you with annoying and possibly irrational questions (by
tagging the config files as "conffiles" and let dpkg deal invoke its
builtin interactive problem solver), then that is *not* a broken
package, but a deliberate choice by the package maintainer.
> As for the your issue, yes, this will break too. It does not matter
> if the admin edit the file or pointed it to a different file using
> symlinks. In both cases, the configuration is most likely lost during
> upgrades. I consider it a variant of the problem described above,
> where the wanted configuration is lost during upgrades
You say "configuration files" here. Would you say the same of conffiles?
And would you say if replacing with a dir, named pipe or device node?
I believe the local admin (or the CDD tool behaving as if it was the
local adming - in violation of Debian Policy 10.7.4) can't blame the
packaging system if changing conffiles into something else than files.
- Jonas
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
- Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCtfnpn7DbMsAkQLgRAv0RAKCZIuxnaQRMvF3D0elpljzbU5vfHACbBHMe
2AxYWQjdf7WJ55taQzqkCFA=
=fs6/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: