Re: conffiles versus configuration files
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: conffiles versus configuration files"):
...
> I fail to see why you think that this discussion should have
> ended, since you have yourself in the past added to the confusion, in
> the form of the packaging manual. In technical matters, personal
> opinions count less than wordings of the standards being folowed.
> Feel free to change your opinion, but do not express dismay when
> people have been folowing what the standards say.
I didn't write all of the relevant standards, and I consider myself
the authority on the Way, the Truth and the Light on this matter :-).
(Which doesn't mean that I didn't make mistakes in the documentation,
which is as you say confusing.)
...
> If you want to change it, discuss it here on the policy list,
> and have the policy and packaging manuals amended.
I thought that was what this thread was about. Clearly I wasn't
sufficiently explicit. Well, then:
Firstly, does anyone disagree with my description of the way things
are or should be ?
Secondly, Christian: can you merge this text or something with
identical meaning into the manual and also check references in the
manual to configuration files and conffiles and make sure that the
right term is used in each case ? Someone recently posted a list of
places where they thought the wrong term had been used and I followed
up arguing with only one of them. For the record, I agreed with the
others.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: