On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:00:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:36:01 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > 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? > > Well, I don't use proftpd, and I have blown away the downloaded > package. Lets see. > > From what I recall, you had a single function where the > configuration file was replaced, and that used ucf. Let us handle the > trivial cases first [snip] > Can you postulate qa scenario where ucf would cause user data > to be lost?
No, your analysis looks fine to me, thanks. I am now convinced that ucf is a great tool to manage configuration files, I hope it will support asking questions via debconf very soon. Denis
