Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again)

[Philip Hands <phil@hands.com>]

> On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
> 
> > OK, an example where it might make sense to have a non-configuration file, 
> > listed as a conffile:
> > 
> >   A package includes a script (under /usr/bin say) that is commonly
> >   customised by the local admin.
> > ...
> 
> No, this script should not be a conffile. Any customisation, such as fax
> ports, should be read from a configuration file somewhere under /etc. If a
> script in /usr/bin requires customisation by the sysadmin, this is a bug
> in the script.

Absolutely, If you _have_ to edit the file for the package to work, that's
a bug.

So let's say there is such a package, and we fix the bug (so you no longer 
need to edit a /usr/bin/ script on Debian systems).

This does not change the fact that the normal way of configuring that package 
(on all OS's except Debian) is to edit the script file.  This means that some
sysadmins in mixed environments, will do just that.

Should we slap their wrists (by destroying their configuration every upgrade) 
or should we react to this state of affairs, and add the script to the 
package's conffiles ?

Please explain the downside of listing a non-configuration file as a conffile.

I'm not saying this should be a recommended approach, but if we find that the 
users of a particular package keep complaining that they got screwed by an 
upgrade because of a situation like this, we should have the option of making
a non-cofiguration file a conffile.

Cheers, Phil.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org