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

Re: It's Huntin' Season

Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > If the .el files are not supposed to be edited they should not be in
> > > /etc
> >
> > Nice reaction.
> And a correct one.  Read Debian Policy, which comes before any
> sub-policies(emacs, java, perl, python, etc).

I was more referring to the plain "No.". 
It's sucks that everybody is so confrontational all the time.

> > We don't have a choice; that's where they go.  Please read Emacs policy.
> > That's where we put files that Emacs reads on startup to setup add-on
> > packages (e.g. /etc/emacs/site-start.d/).
> Fine.  So that's where they go.  But you must still follow Debian
> Policy about files in /etc.

Which is why I was asking if we had cases where that would be bad.
Usually you place a file under /etc because it's a config file.  These
emacs files are there because that's where Emacs sets up.  Yes, I know
what you just said, but try to see the reason things have been like this
for years.

> > We discussed this on debian-emacsen last year. See:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-emacsen/2001/debian-emacsen-200102/msg00012.
> html
> So?  Does that mean that what was said then can't be changed?

So?  When did I say otherwise?  In fact, I later ask if we should.
Quit being so confrontational for no reason please.

> > A lot of maintainers don't mark the files there as confiles because they
> > don't expect them to be edited.  If you want a second startup.d
> > directory outside of /etc for this purpose, change Emacs policy and
> > patch the added started code in all Emacsen.  Then we can move our code
> > out.
> Files in /etc are to be marked conffiles.  Period.  End of story.
> Have a nice day.

What's the relation with what I said in the above paragraph.  I don't
see it.  Quit being so confrontational for no reason please.

> In other words, just because the emacs policy doesn't say they should be
> marked conffiles, doesn't mean they shouldn't be marked conffiles.  The emacs
> policy is in addition to existing Debian Policy.  You can't follow the former
> without following the latter.

You said that already.

> > But at least discuss this on debian-emacsen instead of spontanously
> > submitting serious bug against packages for something that has been the
> > custom to do.
> It may be the custom.  That doesn't mean it is correct.

You said that already.
> > How about it, debian-emacsen collegues, is it time to set (or follow)
> > policy and mark them _all_ as conffiles?  Do we have clear example of
> > where this would be a nuisance?
> It's a bug, plain and simple.  And RC(serious) at that.

Oh man.  It's great talking to you.

Now, on to the problem at hand.

 - Do we have files under /etc/emacs that really shouldn't be conffiles?
 - If so, can the bulk of them be moved out of /etc/emacs and loaded by
   smaller conffiles under /etc/emacs?  Then all /etc/emacs files could
   be conffiles (and we should spell it out in emacs-policy).

I don't think any of my /etc/emacs setup files would benefit from being
conffiles, but none would be hurt either (or hurt users).  If they have
no need to edit them, they probably won't.  And then they won't get
useless prompts on upgrades when I add stuff to them.  I'll just do that
with my packages.


Reply to: