Bug#40766: PROPOSED] Rewrite of "Configuration files" section
On 18-Jul-99, 14:43 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> > I'm against saying that "every conffile is a configuration file" simply
> > because I don't want to lock out some other legitimate use of the
> > conffile mechanism.
>
> The very nature of the conffile mechanism seems to be to protect the
> sysadmin from losing locally configurations. Having a conffile which
> does not have this purpose seems silly, at least at this point.
Exactly, except that I would change the phrase "losing local
configurations" to "losing local changes". If someone has package that
needs to protect local changes to a file, the the conffile mechanism is
a good way to do that, and I don't want people filing bugs against that
package just because "file x in package y is not a configuration file,
and the policy says all conffiles are configuration files."
> If we allow for this possibility, then we should at least take care to
> clarify what happens to conffiles in the later sections of the changed
> text. (Can't remember which para off-hand....)
Not sure what you mean by "...what happens to conffiles", but if you
mean the details of how dpkg treats conffiles, then I don't want that in
policy; there is a reference to the packaging manual already, and that
should be sufficient.
Steve
Reply to: