Bug#40766: PROPOSED] Rewrite of "Configuration files" section
On 19-Jul-99, 04:25 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> One other question about the proposal. Is it necessary for multiple
> packages which share a configuration file for one of them to specify
> it as a conffile? Maybe it is a configuration file which by nature
> cannot be a conffile?
No, it is not necessary for shared configuration file to be a conffile
for one of the packages...but if it is a conffile, then it can be a
conffile for *exactly* one package (unless the packages conflict).
I can see how you got that from what I wrote, though, so I'm going to
rework the shared configuration file section before I post it as an
[AMMENDMENT].
> [Please don't feel I'm trying to nitpick; I think you've done very
> good, long overdue work on this section of policy. Thanks!]
Thank you! And nitpick away - it's the nature of standards that they
need to be very precise and clear, and the only way you get that (at
least if *I'm* writing it!) is edit, edit, edit. I'd much rather spend
a while clarifying and explaining now, than to have re-do this again 3
months from now because I botched it.
Steve
Reply to: