Your message dated Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:47:29 +0000
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#26402: [PROPOSED] packaging manual needs clarification
about conffiles
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Sep 1998 12:18:24 +0000
Received: (qmail 11196 invoked from network); 4 Sep 1998 12:18:23 -0000
Received: from pizarro.unex.es ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by debian.novare.net with SMTP; 4 Sep 1998 12:18:23 -0000
Received: from guadiana.unex.es ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [158.49.8.233])
by pizarro.unex.es (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA09730
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:18:19 +0200
Received: from cantor.unex.es ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [158.49.32.40])
by guadiana.unex.es (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA09898
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 14:18:13 +0200
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 14:16:28 +0200 (CET)
From: Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bugs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: packaging manual needs clarification about conffiles
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Package: debian-policy
Version: today
The Debian packaging manual (which I consider here part of "debian
policy") says:
Note that a package should not modify a dpkg-handled conffile in its
maintainer scripts. Doing this will lead to dpkg giving the user
confusing and possibly dangerous options for conffile update when the
package is upgraded.
Well, this is not true when the conffile provided by the package is always
the same. Example: /etc/timezone. The conffile included in the package is
something like "Factory", and certainly dpkg never asks about replacing
this file or not. Another example: /etc/adjtime.
Therefore the packaging manual and or debian policy should clarify whether
or not this is allowed.
If it is allowed, it should say so.
If it is not allowed, a little bit more of rationale is needed, since the
current rationale "this will lead to dpkg giving the user..." is not
enough.
Thanks.
--
"bd23e8f868526cd30ca04729b1caf300" (a truly random sig)
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 26402-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Feb 2001 10:56:30 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Feb 15 04:56:30 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mserv1c.vianw.co.uk [::ffff:195.102.240.33]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 14TM5N-00031V-00; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 04:56:29 -0600
Received: from p18.nas4.is3.u-net.net ([195.102.197.146] helo=polya)
by mserv1c.vianw.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #5)
id 14TM5K-0007eR-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:56:27 +0000
Received: from jdg by polya with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
id 14TLwf-00047V-00; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:47:29 +0000
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:47:29 +0000
From: Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bug#26402: [PROPOSED] packaging manual needs clarification about
conffiles
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
Sender: Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The whole section about conffiles and configuration files has been
completely rewritten recently, so this bug report can now be closed.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
