Sven Joachim wrote: > Tom H wrote: > > It's safer to use insserv's override mechanism. > > It's also more convenient. If you edit the script itself, dpkg will > pester you with its conffile prompt every time the maintainer changes > something in the script. In my case that pestering is a feature. There are two cases. In one case I am doing something temporarily. I don't want it permanently disabled but just temporarily while I am hacking on something. This reminder from dpkg on the next package is good in that case because if I am forgetful it reminds me I need to clean up that temporary hack. The second case is on a Stable server. In which case I am also pestered every release about it. And on Debian's release cycle timeline that is a good interval to examine things and decide if I need to keep that local modification or if I can avoid it. Every two years with the next Stable release is about the right time for that type of work. About every two years with the Stable release isn't really an annoying level of pestering. But I agree that for those running Sid with the frequent churn that the routine pestering then would be annoying. In which case if I wanted something permanent I would probably remove the package. Installation and removal are so trouble free and easy that I would definitely just remove the package. Or disabling with the symlinks is okay too. If the package were in a dependency chain or likely to come back due to a dependency then leaving the configuration in the symlinks would be the only way. To be clear I am saying that I realize that there isn't only one use model. Different cases will want different ways of dealing with it. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature