On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:11:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > justification: this is not a flaw in the policy, at best, this may be > a proposal to change policy to codifying, in my opinion, a less > desirable behaviour, and should be treated like any other proposal For heaven's sake, does someone have to disagree with _EVERYTHING_? > Sorry, this is a bug in those packages. No, it is not. > dpkg has always had > the correct behavour of not reinstalling conffiles that are removed; > and so do packages managing configuration files using ucf. That's really great. The reason some packages _don't_ use dpkg or ucf for managing their configuration files is because dpkg's and ucf's behaviour is _not_ always desirable. That's an utterly bogus line of argument, and an absolutely _meaningless_ one -- it's making policy for policy's sake rather than because it actually benefits anyone. > Policy, while documenting practice for the most part, should > not recommend or condone broken behavour just because packages are > broken. The. Packages. Are. Not. Broken. It's that simple. How many times have you found base-passwd recreating /etc/passwd and /etc/group a nuisance? Never? Funny that. Why the fuck do we have to have a debate about this? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Description: PGP signature