On 05/02/2014 10:42, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I've also found some references to the UCF package but it is not
> referenced in the debconf-devel manpage itself, is UCF the way to go or
> is this a red herring?
If the default configuration file is shipped as-is by the package
(no changes due to debconf question, local tests, ...), then ucf
is not very interesting (more complex to manage, the only advantage
I see is the possibility of three-way merge).
As soon as the contents of the configuration file cannot be put as-is
in the package and must be changed/edited, then dpkg conffile cannot
be used (else, you get a prompt on upgrade without local modifications).
In this case, I find ucf very convenient. Ucf does lots of things
that I do not have to reimplement myself. My regret is that ucf is
not integrated with dpkg (so dpkg -S does not know ucf-managed files)
Regards,
Vincent
--
Vincent Danjean GPG key ID 0x9D025E87 vdanj...@debian.org
GPG key fingerprint: FC95 08A6 854D DB48 4B9A 8A94 0BF7 7867 9D02 5E87
Unofficial pkgs: http://moais.imag.fr/membres/vincent.danjean/deb.html
APT repo: deb http://people.debian.org/~vdanjean/debian unstable main
--
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/52f378cf.3000...@free.fr
