Re: Removing self-managed configuration files?
Marc Haber <email@example.com> wrote:
> I doubt this.
The code is definitely not what I call complex. The tetex-bin package
is, but not that particular piece of code, once isolated.
> Additionally, this is a huge waste of maintainer time. Code like this
> _BELONGS_ into a standardized tool. Following your course of
> argumentation, why not have debhelper removed from the archive?
You're resorting to hyperbole and putting words in my mouth (sorry,
don't know how to express that well in english).
Of course a standard tool for doing that would be nice, but there is no
such tool now, as it seems. Now, ask yourself: when debhelper didn't
exist, did people refuse to make packages because "there ought to be a
standard easy-to-use tool for doing all these little things"?
As Manoj explained you, a standard tool won't magically pop up if
everyone is passively waiting for it.
> I still feel that the right place to do this is the tool that claims
> to be able to replace dpkg conffile (sic!) handling, ucf.
This "sic" has nothing to do here. ucf indeed performs a comparable task
as dpkg's conffile handling.
Remember: dpkg does _nothing_ particular for configuration files that
are not conffiles. The particular handling that ucf is trying to replace
is therefore aptly named "dpkg's conffile handling".