On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:50:58AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> OK, so where do we stand on this one?
> The proposal is to add a requirement to policy (Ron's wording):
> A package may not make hard links to conffiles.
> Rationale: This is because hardlinks are likely to point to the old
> config files after an upgrade, which is probably not the intended
> behavior.
The rationale doesn't make sense. If a package upgrades the conffile,
it should upgrade all its links. If it doesn't, then it has a bug.
OTOH, it could certainly be confusing to the admin/user who edits the
conffile. Getting the links out of sync by hand is probably all too
easy to do (depending on your editor). Therefore I support the
proposal, but would like to see a better official rationale. How
about:
Rationale: this is because an admin might edit a conffile without
updating the links, resulting in an inconsistent system.
cheers
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
| this .signature file.
