On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:23:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > > > > In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in
> > > > > > debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they
> > > > > > will only
> > > > > > overwrite the existing versions if they have not been modified or
> > > > > > the user
> > > > > > requests it.
> > > > >
> > > > > and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should
> > > > > install
> > > > > them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should
> > > > > be
> > > > > upgraded? if so, mv them to the proper location in /var.
> > > > >
> > > > > same thing is done for ppp's provider peer/chatscript files.
> > > >
> > > > But that's a policy violation (13.3)
> > >
> > > What ppp does with /etc/{ppp/peers,chatscripts}/provider is not a policy
> > > violation.
> >
> > Maybe you misunderstood what I was referring to... of course changing or
> > messing with them isn't, but generating/installing them from e.g.
> > /usr/share/doc/foo/examples is a violation, according to 13.3.
>
> It does not violate 13.3 because at the time the package is newly installed,
> /usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/* exists.
...so the system administrator won't get a chance to delete them and won't
cause the program (the script) to break. That's the rationale behind that
policy section, it seems.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
