Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I would like to request a discussion about Configuration files > and the conffiles mechanism. We knwo the following: > > a) Any configuration file required or created by a package has to > reside in /etc (POLICY 3.3.7) > b) Most configuration files under /etc [where else could they be?] > are also supposed to be conffiles (POLICY 3.3.7). So we know that > there is a gret deal of overlap in the two categories, [namely, > Configuration files and connfiles] > c) conffiles are meant to be user modifiable files, and the packaging > mechanism goes out of its way to make sure user mods are not > lost. (PACKAGING 9). > d) The conffiles should be specified as absolute pathnames (PACKAGING > 9.1). > > It was my understanding (not shared by at least a few other > people) that the conffiles were a propoer subset of the Configuration > files set, and hence by rule (a) were constrained to be in /etc too. > > It has been proposed that that is not the case, that conffiles > are an independent classification.
Good summary. > If that is the case, then under one interpretation (a) becomes > meaningless, since it only applies to the small subset of files that > are configuration files but are not conffiles (if indeed conffiles > are unconstrained). > > I would like clarification of the criteria by which one may > classify a file a conffile (I hope we are all in agreement about the > distinction between configuration files and program data files?), and > whether conffiles are indeed unconstrained by (a) above. If the > latter is true, lacking any criteria for selection of conffiles, (a) > above is meaningless. No, I think it would still apply to all configuration files, be they conffiles or not, so it would still have meaning. > If indeed my interpretation of the manuals is in > error, I would like these clarification to be put into the policy > manuals. I consider this ambiguity a defect in the manuals. Agreed. -- see shy jo
