Re: Rationale for /etc/init.d/* being conffiles?
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Policy Manual 3.4.5 says:
>
> Do not include the /etc/rcn.d/* symbolic links in dpkg's conffiles
> list! This will cause problems! Do, however, include the /etc/init.d
> scripts in conffiles.
>
> However, it does not say why /etc/init.d/* scripts have to be conffiles.
> They are usually programs, not configuration files.
>
> Could somebody please explain the rationale for having *all*
> /etc/init.d/* scripts as conffiles?
>
> Please, don't say "you can deactivate the service by modifying the
> scripts", since we already can deactivate the service by uninstalling the
> package, and the *real* configuration files will remember how exactly do
> we want the services to be activated again when we install the package
> again.
You can deactivate OR CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR of the program by modifying the
script. If it isn't a conffile, this will break every time the package is
upgraded (I frequently tweak the behavior of the init.d scripts). I know
I'd get seriously annoyed if my changes were suddenly overridden. The
only inconvenience there is the occasional prompting about a file I've
changed being updated. I far prefer that small warning to having programs
change behavior under my nose. You only got the warning because a package
was changed to conform to policy and added a conffile that wasn't there.
For the most part, dpkg does a good job of not bothering you about files
that you haven't changed or which haven't changed upstream.
--
Scott K. Ellis <storm@gate.net> http://www.gate.net/~storm/
Reply to: