Hi, On Saturday 05 April 2008 21:18, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I think the approach being proposed is wrong. It would upset existing > users and make life more complicated for "normal" uses, to accomodate what > is essentially a packaging and policy problem. There could be any number > of custom Debian distributions that want to customize various configuration > files. The end result of that would be that the dpkg conffile mechanism > must go away entirely. Maybe that is the way to go, I wouldn't be opposed > to that. But we need to consider this a bit more generally before we craft > an individual workaround in every package.
I think you're overestimating the amount of changes CDDs need to do. Currently
we have nine blocking bugs for #311188 left, not 20000 :-)
I still think you might have a point though :-) But I'd prefer to have this
discussion after Lenny and for now concentrate on getting those few relevant
packages fixed now. And I'm not sure you have point as well: as a user, I
very much like packages which I can customize without loosing the default
configuration too much.
> That said, I would welcome a proposal and patch for switching to ucf.
> AFAICT, this would give end users essentially the same behavior while
> allowing other packages to write around in the configuration files. I have
> never implemented it, however.
I guess we will have to look into this then ;-)
regards,
Holger
pgpdxoNnao4z6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
