tags 523483 + pending thanks On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 22:30 +0200, Sergio Gelato wrote: > Indeed. Some other packages have taken the approach of only editing such > files if they contain a comment that says something like "delete this line > to keep this file from being managed by debconf".
I dislike this idea very much. It forces you to either use debconf to edit the configuration (but most of the time in a very limited fashion), or to do everything manually. You also run the risk of not seeing the debconf notice and having your manual changes lost on the next package upgrade. IMO debconf questions should be used to get a package up and running and maybe (with low priority questions) to configure it for most cases. Anyway, nsswitch.conf is not a candidate for such a mechanism. > A new development I wasn't aware of. Transposed to NSS that would also > argue for common conventions and tools to be used by all packages that > provide NSS modules. That would certainly be good for consistency, > which is what this bug report really is all about. I agree and would really love to be able to use such a tool. For now, I've added a question at postrm (both remove and purge) that checks to see whether LDAP is used in /etc/nsswitch.conf and offers to remove the ldap values if debconf is available. More details can be found here: http://arthurenhella.demon.nl/viewvc/nss-ldapd/nss-ldapd/debian/libnss-ldapd.postrm?view=patch&r1=843&r2=842 Thanks for pointing this out, I think the question on remove is an improvement. -- -- arthur - [email protected] - http://people.debian.org/~adejong --
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
