Re: Clarification of Policy and Packaging manuals requested

[Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net>]

Christian Schwarz wrote:
> Comments are appreciated. If you think that some sections in the manuals
> should be clarified, please tell me exact sentences which you find
> `confusing'.

3.4.2:

     These scripts should not fail obscurely when the configuration files
     remain but the package has been removed, as the default in dpkg is to
     leave configuration files on the system after the package has been
     removed. Only when it is executed with the `--purge' option will dpkg
     remove configuration files. Therefore, you should include a `test'

I belive you should s/configuration file/conffile/ on this. Dpkg doesn't
know about configuartion files.

3.5:
     If a certain job has to be executed more frequently than `daily,' the
     package should install a file `/etc/cron.d/<package-name>' tagged as
     configuration file.

This should say "tagged as a conffile". It's impossible to tag something as
a configuration file.

     modified by the local system administrator. In addition, they have to
     be registered as configuration file.

And again, it should say conffile.

     The scripts in these directories have to check, if all necessary
     programs are installed before they try to execute them. Otherwise,
     problems will arise when a package was removed (but not purged), since
     the configuration files are kept on the system in this situation.

Should say conffile again.

3.9:

     Furthermore, as `/etc/profile' is a configuration file of the bash
     package, no other package may put any environment variables or other
     commands into that file.

Rather, the reason it cannot be edited is because it is a conffile.

4.2

     The configuration files `/etc/services', `/etc/protocols', and
     `/etc/rpc' are managed by the netbase package and may not be modified
     by other packages.

If these weren't conffiles, there would be no real reason other packages
shouldn't modify them. So say "The conffiles ..." instead.

That's all the places I could find that misuse "configuration files". But I
think the real problem is that the terms "conffile" and "configuration
files" are too close together. We either need some definitions added to the
policy document, or clearer terms.

-- 
see shy jo