On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 05:06:15PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 13:54, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > 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.
Let's please try to keep this kind of complication to an absolute minimum, though. Packages should be encouraged to use as simple mechanisms as possible for their configuration files, I feel: where possible, dpkg-handled conffiles should be quite adequate for a large number of cases. I find that the minimalist approach of using as simple configuration file technology as I can in my packages means that I don't try to over-extend them to deal with things which are really better documented well and left up to the admin. IMHO, this is a win. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
