On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 13:54, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> 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.
I agree. > 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?). Yep, that's exactly the way I was thinking of it. Cool, I'm glad we're on the same wavelength here. Having it in ucf will be a good first step. In fact, ucf might be the logical place to keep this. By the way, David B Harris has expressed interest in private mail to me in tackling this problem too, hopefully he'll speak up here with his ideas.
