[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#61308: PROPOSAL] Initializing databases by using conffiles.

> The following proposal tries to address cases like Bug #34294.
> \begin{proposal}
> Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
> \end{proposal}
> Rationale: We should try to reduce prompting to a minimum during upgrades.
> 99,999% users will always say "No" to dpkg prompt. In this case it is 
> better not to prompt and assume that "No" is what almost everybody
> wants.
> I'm looking for seconds for this proposal.

 What's the meaning of "text database"? Does this add more meaning than the
current policy text:

   The easy way to achieve this behavior is to make the configuration
   file a conffile. This is appropriate if it is possible to distribute a
   default version that will work for most installations, although some
   system administrators may choose to modify it.

 It's not very strong, perhaps this paragraph could have something along the
lines... (this paragraph is not intended to be put as it is into policy!!)
=) :

  Files thar are intended to be modified in most installations should be not
tagged as conffiles. If a configuration file support an include mechanism,
it's encouraged that a proably invariant part, and a probably
always-modified part, be separated.

(For instance this is what I've done in file, splitting the files in two and
modifying the program to read both locations by default... and, in a related
issue, the lynx configuration file could be split into a huge file, and a
small one with the configuration items the package asks at postinst time.)

Reply to: