Re: conffiles versus configuration files

[Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: conffiles versus configuration files"):
...
> 	I also think that the distinction between "file needed for
>  the purposes of configuration" and a user modifiable file read by the
>  program that affects the working or the output fo the program is
>  rather thin in some cases (indeed, I failed trying to apply the
>  criterion similar to that used for for pornography: I know it when I
>  see it). 
> 
> 	I move that any changes made by the local adminstrator should
>  fall under the purvue of this: and any local changes made should be
>  saved by backing /etc; /var/lib/; /home; and /usr/local. I do not
>  care whether the changes ade are classified as changes for
>  configuration versus changes in conffiles (which, pardon me, does
>  seem a wee bit bureaucratic to me).

You want the whole of /var, and also /usr/src and /boot.

> 	If indeed this is deemed correct, then conffiles should be
>  restricted to one of these areas (I would prefer /etc, but I
>  am not adamant about it). If we do choose to restrict conffiles to
>  /etc, they could become a strict subset of configuration files ;-)

I think that conffiles are usually configuration files, and
configuration files always belong in /etc.  I think it would be a very
exceptional conffile which shouldn't be in one of those areas.

Ian.


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