On 24 Jul 2003 14:07:35 +0200, Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 13:46, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I see this as totally bogus. Either the conffile is shared or it
>> isn't. If it's shared then the packages involved know this
> Package foo which eliminates /etc/foo.conf doesn't "know" that there
> is not some other package, bar, which Depends on foo and uses
> /etc/foo.conf . That's the problem. See
>> 108587 for additional discussion.
This is an impossible situation, and would place an
unreasonable burden on packages that wish to remove conffiles. What
needs to happen is the maintainer of such package needs to look at
the reverse depends on his package, and inform the maintianers of all
dependent packages that the conffile is going away. The depending
packages can either do an versioned dependency on an older version of
the package (which contains the conffile), or create their own, new,
conffile.
After all, we are all in this project together, are we not,
and we can indeed communicate with each other without having dpkg or
policy mediate for us?
manoj
--
The countdown had stalled at 'T' minus 69 seconds when Desiree, the
first female ape to go up in space, winked at me slyly and pouted her
thick, rubbery lips unmistakably -- the first of many such advances
during what would prove to be the longest, and most memorable, space
voyage of my career. Winning sentence, 1985 Bulwer-Lytton bad fiction
contest.
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
