Re: Clarification of Policy and Packaging manuals requested
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would like to request a discussion about Configuration files
> and the conffiles mechanism. We knwo the following:
>
> a) Any configuration file required or created by a package has to
> reside in /etc (POLICY 3.3.7)
> b) Most configuration files under /etc [where else could they be?]
> are also supposed to be conffiles (POLICY 3.3.7). So we know that
> there is a gret deal of overlap in the two categories, [namely,
> Configuration files and connfiles]
> c) conffiles are meant to be user modifiable files, and the packaging
> mechanism goes out of its way to make sure user mods are not
> lost. (PACKAGING 9).
> d) The conffiles should be specified as absolute pathnames (PACKAGING
> 9.1).
>
> It was my understanding (not shared by at least a few other
> people) that the conffiles were a propoer subset of the Configuration
> files set, and hence by rule (a) were constrained to be in /etc too.
>
> It has been proposed that that is not the case, that conffiles
> are an independent classification.
Good summary.
> If that is the case, then under one interpretation (a) becomes
> meaningless, since it only applies to the small subset of files that
> are configuration files but are not conffiles (if indeed conffiles
> are unconstrained).
>
> I would like clarification of the criteria by which one may
> classify a file a conffile (I hope we are all in agreement about the
> distinction between configuration files and program data files?), and
> whether conffiles are indeed unconstrained by (a) above. If the
> latter is true, lacking any criteria for selection of conffiles, (a)
> above is meaningless.
No, I think it would still apply to all configuration files, be they
conffiles or not, so it would still have meaning.
> If indeed my interpretation of the manuals is in
> error, I would like these clarification to be put into the policy
> manuals. I consider this ambiguity a defect in the manuals.
Agreed.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: