Re: Modifying other packages' conffiles: the not-so-ideal way
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:17:10PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> schrieb:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:16:39AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> policy says in section 10.7.4:
> >
> >> ,----
> >> | If it is desirable for two or more related packages to share a
> >> | configuration file and for all of the related packages to be able to
> >> | modify that configuration file, then the following should be done:
[...]
> >> `----
> > [...]
> >> ,----
> >> | The maintainer scripts must not alter a conffile of any package
> >> `----
> >
> > You are mixing up "conffile" and "configuration-file".
> No, I don't think so. A conffile usually is a configuration file,
> too.
Yes. My point was the mentioning of policy's shared
configuration-files and "conffiles" in one mail. Shared
configuration-files in this sense cannot be conffiles, ever.
Rereading the original mail, I see that you are aware of the
difference, I was just too daft.
> /etc/pcmcia/network.opts is a conffile of pcmcia-cs, and it is a
> configuration file that has to be edited by the user to make it work.
> In this case, a user of my package (netenv) would have to a add a couple
> of lines to it - or, as I said, a script or maintainer script could do
> it for him.
It must not be a maintainer-script or a script invoked by a
maintainer-script (Just for the archive, I don't you
think are not aware of that.)
> A package with similar functionality, whereami, yet has
> its additions added to this file (and /etc/pcmcia/network).
Your course of action, contacting the maintainer, seems to be the
correct one.
cu andreas
--
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"
Reply to: