Torsten Werner wrote: > On 10/9/07, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Configuration file handling must conform to the following behavior: > > * local changes must be preserved during a package upgrade > > That talks about correct conffiles not about fully broken ones that > should be removed. > > > That is policy 10.7.3, which your "conffile handling" violates. I had local, > > non-broken changes to the powerbtn files, and the upgrade failed to preserve > > them. > > The whole concept of the powerbtn files was broken in past. They must > be removed during upgrade to get to a sane state but you are free to > copy them back if you really want them. That part of the policy simply > does not apply here.
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. My powerbtn script is not conceptually broken, it does exactly what I want it to do. The correct thing for the upgrade to do is to remove unmodified scripts that match known md5sums, and if necessary, prompt about what to do about locally modified scripts. But simply removing locally modified configuration files is a policy violation no matter how many times you downgrade the bug report. It's a shame that you seem more interested in downgrading your bug reports than fixing them. I do ocasionally manage to come up with patches for simple bugs like this one if asked.. Instead, you seem to want to bring this to the technical committee? -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
