On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 11:40:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:31:10 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:15:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > [...] > >> Over writing user changes is a violation of policy. Asking users if > >> it is ok with them if we violate policy is not good enough. > > [...] > > Perhaps I should elucidate. In the cxontext of this thread, it > was obvious to me that we are talking about a one time question > whether or not is is OK to always overwrite configuration files > forever more, which causes user changes to be silently lost from that > point on.
Right, thanks for clarifying. It can also be achieved with debconf, by marking the question as not already seen if files differ, but I believe that nobody does this. [...] > Oh, I downloaded proftpd, and on first glance, the postinst > seems to do the right thing. Nice style too ;-) I wondered whether this use of ucf is safe. If postinst fails for any reason, and package is reconfigured, the backup file is overwritten. An alternative is to abort postinst if -old already exists, and to remove it when postinst finishes. Isn't this safer? Denis
