Peter Jay Salzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > begin Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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
No, that's not right. You can modify it as much as you want as long as you stay out of the dexconf section. > 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. A more rational person would just file a bug. That's what the BTS is for. > 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. That's more or less what dexconf does now. -- Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
