>> On 18 Apr 2003 11:55:09 -0400,
>> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So, opinions? Yeah, it's kind of gross. But the way things are
> now is far worse.
As long as /etc/conffiles/managed, /etc/conffiles/unmanaged,
and /etc/conffiles/default are never themselves unmanaged, this would
work. And the factory default for /etc/conffiles/default should be
managed; and the other two files should be empty.
If we standardize on a easy to interpret format for these
files, I'll add the logic to ucf to handle these directives. (how
about a configuration file path per line for /etc/conffiles/managed
and /etc/conffiles/unmanaged, and /etc/conffiles/default contain a
single word, which is "managed" by default; anything other than
"unmanaged" is interpreted as "managed?).
manoj
--
...computer hardware progress is so fast. No other technology since
civilization began has seen six orders of magnitude in
performance-price gain in 30 years. Fred Brooks, Jr.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
