On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 09:07:25AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 03:42:25PM +0900 , Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > I first simply thought that Michael did not know the mechanism of
> > conffiles but I think over a bit and come to wonder that it might
> > be better if we stop to define texmf.cnf as 'conffiles' and treat
> > its upgrade with debconf.
> > Is it possible and how do you think about this?
It would be a great improvement if it were not a conffile. At present
the package *always* prompts the user for modifications, even if the
user has left the file untouched. This is ugly and confusing.
> Both these are ugly (IMHO). If anyone has a better solution, I'd like to hear
> it for using in my packages.
Sadly, no. Leafnode (my debconf-using package) uses the file itself as
a kind of template with the addition of code to update the database in
the config script.
Another alternative would be to allow whatever modifications are being
made to the file by the package to be made in a separate file to that
in which the user uses to configure it.
--
Mark Brown mailto:broonie@tardis.ed.ac.uk (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFS http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Attachment:
pgpG6N4FCQQ2w.pgp
Description: PGP signature