On 19-Jul-99, 04:25 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One other question about the proposal. Is it necessary for multiple > packages which share a configuration file for one of them to specify > it as a conffile? Maybe it is a configuration file which by nature > cannot be a conffile?
No, it is not necessary for shared configuration file to be a conffile for one of the packages...but if it is a conffile, then it can be a conffile for *exactly* one package (unless the packages conflict). I can see how you got that from what I wrote, though, so I'm going to rework the shared configuration file section before I post it as an [AMMENDMENT]. > [Please don't feel I'm trying to nitpick; I think you've done very > good, long overdue work on this section of policy. Thanks!] Thank you! And nitpick away - it's the nature of standards that they need to be very precise and clear, and the only way you get that (at least if *I'm* writing it!) is edit, edit, edit. I'd much rather spend a while clarifying and explaining now, than to have re-do this again 3 months from now because I botched it. Steve
