On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:59:07 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 08:30:51AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: >> OK. So I will be shipping a package that will break existing and working >> setups, while handling this automatically is perfectly possible. >> >> So be it. > >Er...how will it break existing and working setups? Assuming that you are >shipping a working conffile in the new format (and you should be),
Sure. >dpkg will prompt the user about the changes. With the default option being to keep the old config file in old format, breaking the package. >It is the user's responsibility to merge >any changes that they want from newer conffiles, and they are given >notification about them automatically. Which is the way I chose. However, automatic conversion would be possible. >You have a choice about how to handle configuration files, either as >conffiles or using your own methods in the maintainer scripts. If you feel >that you can do better than conffiles, you are free to implement your own >system, as long as you follow the guidelines in the policy manual about >configuration files. Existing package versions have the file as a dpkg-conffile, and future package versions should have it as a dpkg-conffile as well since this is the right way. Changing back and forth between the two methods sounds broken. Would it be possible? Oh, yes, jftr: The package I am talking about is console-log, and version 0.8-1, using the new config file format, has been uploaded to unstable this afternoon. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29
