Re: Patching a config file
"Joe Smith" <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com> writes:
> "Goswin von Brederlow" <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote in
> message [🔎] 87sltqxh4e.fsf@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de">news:[🔎] 87sltqxh4e.fsf@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de...
>> "Joe Smith" <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> "Justin Pryzby" <justinpryzby@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
>>> news:20051030173739.GA18127@andromeda...
>>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 06:00:48PM +0100, Danai SAE-HAN wrote:
>>>>> Package "freetype1-tools" owns a configuration file, namely
>>>>> /etc/ttf2pk/ttfonts.map.
>>>> It is a conffile, because it is contained in the package:
>
>>
>> That won't work right. On the next upgrade with a changed conffile pkg
>> will claim the package was modified by the user while in fact it was
>> modifed by the package. That is just wrong.
>>
>> If you need to modify the file then don't make it a conffile. Create
>> it completly automatically, e.g. in /var/lib/package/, or make it a
>> configuartion file and use ucf.
>
> You misunderstood. I said that it is possible that a Configuration
> file that is stored in the .deb could be a non-conffile.
> The previous poster had asserted that it must be. I had showed how it
> might not be the case.
>
>
> Basically The package could leave the file as a plain file, and in
> preinst gather any user changes, let the new version destroy the old
> version (AFAIK dpkg won't compain because it is NOT a conffile), and
> then restore user changes.)
>
> Just re-read my post thinking I was talking about a normal file rather
> than a confile.
Debian Policy 10.7.3:
| The other way to do it is via the maintainer scripts. In this case,
| the configuration file must not be listed as a conffile and must not
| be part of the package distribution.
So our previous poster is completly right by saing it is a conffile
since it is contained in the package. Anything else would be a policy
violation.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: