Bug#22935: PROPOSED] Do not make hardlinks to conffiles

[ron@microtronics.com.au (Ron)]

> > > Fair enough.  So I second Ian's proposal that policy should say, while
> > > talking about conffiles:
> >  
> > > "A package may not make hard links to conffiles.
> > No problem with this.
> > 
> > >  (This is because it will cause technical problems perhaps leading to
> > >   incorrect behaviour.)"
> > 
> > This however explains almost nothing when taken out of context with
> > the above text and will invite later "What technical problems?"
> > questions (like earlier in this thread ;-)
[snip] 
> OK, how about:
> 
>   (This is because the hardlinks will end up pointing to the old
>   config files after an upgrade, which is probably not the intended
>   behaviour.)
> 
>    Julian

(-; take 3:

(This is because hardlinks are likely to point to the old config files
after an upgrade, which is probably not the intended behavior.)

minor semantics, yeah.. but only config files that are to be deleted then
recreated, or renamed, (most of them ;) fall victim to this..
if only the _contents_ are changed then the link should be ok..

I can be happy with either of these two explanations.. saying *will*
just seems a little over-general though 8)

best,
Ron.