On 05/10/2012 12:14 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote: > Not having the files in /etc by default does have technical advantages. > It's easier to see what is local non-default configuration. Original > default file is always available in a known location (and very easy to > revert to, temporarily for testing or permanently). Actually, what you are talking about is a very good candidate for /usr/share/doc/<package>/examples, not at all for a weird things with config files in /lib overridden by /etc, which really, isn't the Debian way.
On 05/10/2012 12:14 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote: > which in most > cases is more maintainable than the 3-way merging required by > "traditional" conffiles. > The 3-way merging at least prompts you that something is changing so you have a chance to update your config file by hand the way you think is best. If the package updates the config file in /lib without prompting, then potentially, the user will not be aware of the change. In a RPM based environment, this behavior is fine, because that's the RPM way to never prompt anything to the user (see *.rpmsave or *.rpmnew files). But this is exactly why I don't like RPM systems! On 05/10/2012 12:14 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote: > It's also preferable to avoid unnecessarily differing from the setup > used on other distros. > IMO, it's preferable to do things the same way on all packages in Debian. I don't see why systemd should be different from any other package we have in the Debian archve. If systemd can't adapt to our ways to do things, with configuration files in /etc, then I'm betting that many will complain (IMO rightly) about policy violation. (just my 2 cents, as I still have on my todo to try systemd...) Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fac0ab0.8040...@debian.org
