Re: Bug#162120: Support #162120
On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 23:43, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> At this point, we are indeed supposed to preserve user
> changes. User changes can be echo "" > /etc/filename, or rm
> /etc/filename.
If it were clear that removal were a "change" then we
would not be having this discussion. The fact that there
is resistance to making policy say clearly that removal
is a change (and therefore not to be undone by regenerating
the removed file) indicates that some people interpret policy
such that config file removal is not a "change".
> Packages already have to deal with effectively removing
> configuration files -- (the echo "" device). How is it so different
> to also expect them to respect non existent files? (even if the
> response is making the package a nop)
Someone who disagreed with Manoj's position would probably argue
that removal of the configuration file is different from
emptying the configuration file in that it is the sort of thing
that might more easily be done inadvertently. Consequently
it is safer or more helpful to regenerate a missing configuration
file, and not an empty one.
I agree with Manoj. A package should not regenerate configuration
files without asking, if it is possible for the programs in it
to run without those files. At most it should print a warning
message and _offer_ to regenerate the file.
However, there are plausible arguments on the other side that
have convinced some people. Therefore there will be no agreement
on this point. Therefore, I suggest that we agree instead to
document the current practice.
--
Thomas Hood
Reply to: