-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 25 Feb 1998, James Troup wrote:
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Anyway, I think this is a bug in dpkg (not asking about removed > > > conffiles) and I don't think it is right to make a program to > > > "benefit" from bugs in other programs... > > > > I've always hated this behavoir, but it's my understanding it's > > intentional (a feature, not a bug ;-). > > "However, note that dpkg will not replace a conffile that was removed > by the user (or by a script). This is necessary because with some > programs a missing file produces an effect hard or impossible to > achieve in another way, so that a missing file needs to be kept that > way if the user did it." (Packaging Manual 9.1) Yes, this is what dpkg currently does. But being documented does not mean it is always a good idea. I didn't say it was an error not to *replace* a conffile when it didn't exist. I said (IMHO) it was an error not to *ask* the user about creating a new file or leave the file in its inexisting state. If dpkg asks about keeping the conffile in place or replacing it with a newer version, it should also ask the user about keeping the file in inexistant state or create a new one. The current behaviour is clearly not appropriate for many configuration files. BTW: I had a bug report against base-files for not creating /root/.bash_profile when it did not exist... Yes, this only proves that conffiles are not appropriate for /root/.bash_profile... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNPVBayqK7IlOjMLFAQGJBQQAqJRhBLZr1J8WN9X8c9Qv4ICY8rScWXR2 xCdjSNlIym3crvNEq9p1HzHT5jfj29EiY9uS2NFERp1RlO6D7cKNbbcvjHg/aMKF AXp+8oJE73YyVPZxvA9VzKMORBiKghEDEbXWFCyugrCRitIFpLBAATRnr/mwNEJ+ PMnLqghpync= =bwqk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
