Bug#40766: Rewrite of "configuration files" section
On 17-Jul-99, 13:08 (CDT), Stefan Gybas <cab@studbox.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > * the maintainer scripts should not alter the conffile of ANY package,
> > including the one the scripts belong to.
> >
> > * the program itself in the package may modify the conffiles of other
> > packages (eg if the program is an editor or dotfiles-type package).
>
> Why is a program in the package allowed to change a conffile but not
> the postinst? The final result is the same: dpkg might ask if I want to
> replace the configuration file when I upgrade the package.
(This is why Hamish suggested and I agreed that the second item was too
confusing...)
What Hamish was pointing out is that it's okay to use emacs or vi or
icepref to modify configuration files and even conffiles. The policy
proposal was in no way meant to imply that you can't write programs to
modify conffiles (either general or specific), just that they can't be
used in a way that hides what they are doing. This is probably obvious
to most people, which is why saying anything about it tends to be
confusing.
Does that make sense?
BTW, both this proposal (#40766) and the general clean-up proposal
(#40767) are currently stalled with only one official seconder (Joey
Hess). I'd guess that Hamish generally approves...but unless I get at
least one more second, I'm going to have to let these drop.
Steve
Reply to: