Andrei Popescu wrote: > Osamu Aoki wrote: > > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > The point is what the Debian Policy says. > > > > Anyway, if you feel strong to enforce this ipart of policy, most > > effective thing to do is file a wishlist bug with patch to lintian to > > enforce <package_name> for both init.d script and default file. > > AFAIK init.d scripts always belong to a package, so not the same thing > (name clashes would be detected by dpkg). I think you missed that it was the /etc/default/ file naming that was under discussion. Those files are often not packaged (for the good reasons mentioned) and so a conflict would not be detected by dpkg. But usually also when they are not packaged they are often not created programmatically but are left to the local admin to create. That is the best practice to use and the one I like to see the most. Presumably the local admin being a human can deal with the problem. If I needed to create a /etc/default/ file as a local admin action and found that it was in conflict between two init.d scripts then I would edit the /etc/init.d/ conffile to remove the conflict and file a bug against one or both of the packages to fix it upstream. But I think this discussion of /etc/default/ collisions is all rather academic. No one has yet to mention any real world case of a problem. Just the potential that it might be a problem. Unless it is a real problem, and I haven't seen it yet, then I don't think there is much benefit trying to prevent it, since it hasn't been happening. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature