Don Armstrong <d...@debian.org> writes: > On Thu, 10 May 2012, Uoti Urpala wrote: >> Don Armstrong wrote: >> > The reason why it is relevant is because [...] >> >> I don't see how the following would make this comparison with rpm >> relevant. > > This is debian-devel, and we're talking about configuration file > handling in Debian, which makes ucf and dpkg relevant. > >> > Having configuration files in /etc and using ucf or similar >> > enables you to deal with this problem easily. >> >> Yes, you do need some tool improvements to be able to alert the user >> about changes. > > Right. So for every package which does this, you have to check to see > whether a configuration file in /etc has had it's corresponding > non-etc configuration file changed, and then offer to merge them > together.
FWIW, /etc/default/* and /etc/$package/conf.d/* and similar already do something *very* close to what etc-overrides-non-etc does. To the point that changing a file under /etc/default, or adding a snippet to conf.d/ can break just as well when the underlying default changes as if that upstream happened to be outside of /etc. We do not handle that case either, and I don't see how the default being outside of /etc would be any different. Except it's easier to follow, since the default is never modified by the admin, while if it's in /etc too, like in plenty of cases in the archive, both can change, and we end up with even scarier situations that can't be resolved sanely. > So there's basically no advantage to etc-overrides-non-etc unless one > hasn't bothered to implement proper configuration file handling. Then we already have a problem, because the conf.d/ and default stuff suffer from the same problems, and they're used widely all over the place. -- |8] -- 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/87vck3de3i....@luthien.mhp
