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

Bug#162120: debian-policy: Deletion of configuration files--should it be preserved?



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 <aj@humbug.org.au> <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.''

Attachment: pgp7l2fTUideD.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: