Re: Clarification of Policy and Packaging manuals requested
Hi,
Could I get an interpretaion of the policy on this message,
point by point? (I mean that. I have put thought into these
questions, I merely ask for the courtesy of some thought in the
responses). Please pardon the redundancy, I think I feel strongly on
this issue.
>>"Christian" == Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de> writes:
Christian> Let me just throw in a few notes:
Christian> 2. I'm wondering why it's so hard for people to get the
Christian> difference between configuration files and
Christian> conffiles.
Perhaps because these terms are never defined, and one of the
obvious interpretation is said to be wrong?
Christian> Perhaps, the name "conffiles" is not a good name
Christian> (but either way, it's unlikely that we'll change the name
Christian> because this would be a _lot_ of work). Here is my
Christian> understanding of these two terms:
Christian> conffiles (CF): a file that is listed in the `conffiles'
Christian> control file of a binary package (.deb)
Oh, cool. Anything we call a conffile is defined to be a
conffile.
This is a circular definition.
What is the criteria for putting the name of the file in a
conffile definition, then? Why should all CFGFs included in a package
(that is, not manipulated in postinst) not also be CFs? Why should
all scripts not be CF's? Indeed, why should every file not be a CF?
Does the program behaviour change when the conffile changes?
if not, then why care about whether it is changed or not? I mean, if
nothing changes, ignore/delete the file.
If the program behaviour changes when a CF is changed, and it
is supposed to be edited locally, why is it not a configuration file?
Seems to fit the description given below.
Christian> configuration file (CFGF): a file that may be changed by
Christian> the local system administrator to adjust a program to her
Christian> needs
And conffiles are not?
So, conffiles are not meant for the local sys admin to change
to modify the behaviour of programs? Why do we have them there at
all? why are all CFs not also CFGFs? The definitions presented
here indicate that should be the case
Christian> Clearly, these two things are not the same.
I'm afraid this is not clear at all.
Are these terms mutually exclusive? Are they orthogonal? I
don't want to loose any changes made to my packages configuration
files, so are they not all conffiles? why are all conffiles also not
configuration files? What is the rationale behind a distinction
between configuration files and conffiles?
Why are conffiles not a proper subset of configuration files?
Should we be concerned about sysadmins changing scripts all
over? should scripts in /var/lib/dpkg/methods be conffiles ``in
case'' the local sysadmin changes them?
Christian> 3. Whether a file is a CFGF should be clear by looking at
Christian> the purpose of the file/program.
The weekend long debate should amply demonstrate that it is
not clear at all.
Christian> Whether a file should be tagged as CF, should also be
Christian> clear: files should be tagged as CF if the file is included
Christian> in the package tree (i.e., displayed by looking at `dpkg
Christian> -c') and if any possible changes done by the local sysadmin
Christian> should be preserved during package upgrades.
I think this definition fits CFGF as well. Or do you mean that
DFGF files should not be changed by sysadmins? Or we can blithely
throw away changes to CFGFs?
Since this fits both sets of files, this is not a good
defining/distinguising criteria.
It seems to me that all CFGFs should be CFs, unless they are
not included in the package. The converse is the matter of
dispute. Are all CFs also CFGFs?
But, if the terms are mutually exclusive (I do not think they
can be, as the rest of this paragraph shall show, I hope), and CFs
are not CFGFs, CFs can be anywhere in the file system, right? So if I
do not want to change my config file to go into /etc, I can just call
it a conffile and leave it in /usr/lib? Why not? will it violate
policy? So the terms cannot be mutually exclusive.
Or are you saying a file can be both CF and CFGF,
Christian> Comments are appreciated. If you think that some sections
Christian> in the manuals should be clarified, please tell me exact
Christian> sentences which you find `confusing'.
It is not any sentence present that is confusing, it is the
ommission of a criteria (or a non circular definition of conffile, or
a clear distinction between a conffile and a configuration file.
manoj
--
Everyone who stops by with unsought advice will see it immediately.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: