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

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

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

 Anthony> 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

 Anthony> For heaven's sake, does someone have to disagree with _EVERYTHING_?

	Cause we can think, and heaven forbid, sometimes even form
 opinions, and not always have the same opinions as you do?

 >> Sorry, this is a bug in those packages. 

 Anthony> No, it is not.

	Is too.

 >> dpkg has always had
 >> the correct behavour of not reinstalling conffiles that are removed;
 >> and so do packages managing configuration files using ucf.

 Anthony> That's really great. The reason some packages _don't_ use
 Anthony> dpkg or ucf for managing their configuration files is
 Anthony> because dpkg's and ucf's behaviour is _not_ always
 Anthony> desirable. That's an utterly bogus line of argument, and an
 Anthony> absolutely _meaningless_ one -- it's making policy for
 Anthony> policy's sake rather than because it actually benefits
 Anthony> anyone.

	Bull shit. Give me one example where you can determine, up on
 high, that your world view always trumps the local human decision. So
 far, you have labelled my line of reasoning as bogus. Fine then. 

 >> Policy, while documenting practice for the most part, should
 >> not recommend or condone broken behavour just because packages are
 >> broken.

 Anthony> The. Packages. Are. Not. Broken. It's that simple.

	Are too. I can descend to your level of argument, nyah nyah.

 Anthony> How many times have you found base-passwd recreating
 Anthony> /etc/passwd and /etc/group a nuisance? Never?  Funny that.

	If I ever remove those files, I would too find it
 annoying. Funny what? When I create a himeypot, and remove
 inetd.conf, I do not want to be second guessed and have my decision

	We are designing for the intelligent operator, not the least
 common moronic denominator.

 Anthony> Why the fuck do we have to have a debate about this?

	Because not all of us are cognizant fo the fact htat you have
 ascended to heaven and are now passing codas to us mere mortals.

	Grow the fuck up.

 Real software engineers don't like the idea of some inexplicable and
 greasy hardware several aisles away that may stop working at any
 moment.  They have a great distrust of hardware people, and wish that
 systems could be virtual at *___all* levels.  They would like
 personal computers (you know no one's going to trip over something
 and kill your DFA in mid-transit), except that they need 8 megabytes
 to run their Correctness Verification Aid packages.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: