begin Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, 2002-01-06 at 19:36, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> > begin Justin R. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Thus spake Peter Jay Salzman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > >
> > > > ok, my XF86Config-4 is all wrong now. i need to edit this file. if
> > > > we're not supposed to edit between the "BEGIN DEBCONF" and "END
> > > > DEBCONF", how the hell am i supposed to get a working XFree86 again?
> > > >
> > > > is there a tool that allows us to change this file?
> > >
> > > Try 'dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86'.
> >
> > just to be very clear on the issue, this isn't acceptable to me.
> >
> > i have very special mode timings and options that i use that aren't
> > available if i reconfigure the package using dpkg. this stuff needs to
> > be put in by hand.
> >
> > i like the chattr idea. just when you thought debian does the Right
> > Thing, they start fscking up by automating somthing which really doesn't
> > require automating...
> >
> > (debian is still the best. just slightly less better).
>
> what were you doing during the upgrade of the package?
>
> It clearly asked me if I wanted debconf to configure it.
>
> It even keeps a backup of the original, if you were doing it by hand and
> accidently said yes.
>
> sheesh.
no shit.
but that's really not the point. the point is there should've been some
kind of message saying something to the effect of:
note: if you let debconf take over your config file, you won't be
able to modify the config file yourself. you give up all rights
to tweak it yourself by hand
i wouldn't believe that *debian* would do this. it's just bad medicine.
yast, yes. linuxconf, yes. debian? no.
"recovering" was no big deal. like you pointed out, it saved a copy of
the old file. but that's like congratulating someone for taking a shit
in toilet. you'd *expect* it to go into the toilet. if a copy weren't
saved, then that would be an excellent reason to switch to another
distribution. immediately. so i don't think giving it a "pat on the
back" for backing up the original is appropriate here.
i'm not saying it sucks completely. the whole ordeal was resolved in
under a minute after i realized what i got myself into. i'm just saying
i was expecting better. perhaps a better solution would've been
something like what we do with modules.conf. let the distribution take
it over, but give the user the opportunity to modify it at will. i LIKE
what debian does with modules.conf. it's one of the most intelligent
solutions iv'e seen to automation vs control.
peter
--
PGP Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D
PGP Public Key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
