Josh Triplett, le ven. 20 déc. 2024 02:05:30 -0800, a ecrit: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 09:55:17AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Josh Triplett, le jeu. 19 déc. 2024 19:05:56 -0800, a ecrit: > > > Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > Ansgar 🙀, le jeu. 19 déc. 2024 16:21:03 +0100, a ecrit: > > > > > And it is actively harmful as if one edits the example configuration > > > > > to > > > > > have a useful configuration as dpkg will start annoying admins with > > > > > "the example configuration has changed; what do you want to do" > > > > > messages. > > > > > > > > Yes, but the thing is: I *do* want to see that message, to make sure > > > > what changed upstream and fix my manual configuration accordingly. > > > > > > There are (at least) two different models of handling configuration > > > here; people used to one model find the other to be awkward and cause > > > problems, and vice versa. > > > > > > In the model where you augment the default system configuration by > > > adding files in /etc, you ideally don't *need* a complete copy of the > > > configuration file. > > > > Yes, that's why having both the ready-to-be-modified model *and* a .d/ > > directory fits both cases. > > I'm talking about the "empty /etc" model here, which is why I'm trying > to find a solution so that people who *want* the file-full-of-comments > have it, without installing it for people who *don't* want it.
What I completely fail to understand is why people would want to not see any file in /etc. What harm does it *actually* cause? > Right now, the model we have is "some packages use the empty /etc model, > some packages install commented-out defaults, and there's no > consistency". I'd love to move to the model of "all packages use > whichever model the sysadmin prefers". Yes, agreeing on something (but also... actually getting it to actually happen...) would be better than the current situation. Samuel
