conffiles vs. scripts (was: /etc/shells policy?)
srivasta@datasync.com (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 18.09.98 in <87btodw4d8.fsf@tiamat.datasync.com>:
> ______________________________________________________________________
> If two or more packages use the same configuration file, one of these
> packages has to be defined as *owner* of the configuration file, i.e.,
> it has to list the file as `conffile' and has to provide a program
> that modifies the configuration file.
>
> The other packages have to depend on the *owner* package and use that
> program to update the configuration file.
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
Aaargh!
Do we still have this nonsense somewhere in the policy?
A configuration file *MUST* either be a conffile, or be managed by one or
more scripts and not be in any .deb, and *never* the twain shall meet.
Ignoring this is a sure recipe for desaster - well, it leads to silliness
like "You will be asked to replace these files, say yes unless you really
changed them". (And then finding out that while I didn't change them, some
script did, and the new version doesn't have the changes, and they were
essential.)
MfG Kai
Reply to: