Bug#358552: I don't think this belongs in ucf

Hi, On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:03:51 +0100, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 10:38:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> If a configuration file is removed, the package should be dealing >> with old configuration files, since some of the tings mentioned >> require packa

Bug#358552: I don't think this belongs in ucf

On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 10:38:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > If a configuration file is removed, the package should be > dealing with old configuration files, since some of the tings > mentioned require package specific intelligence. ucf should at least provide a framework for doi

Bug#358552: I don't think this belongs in ucf

Hi, If a configuration file is removed, the package should be dealing with old configuration files, since some of the tings mentioned require package specific intelligence. manoj -- Absolutum obsoletum. (If it works, it's out of date.) Stafford Beer Manoj Srivastava <[EMAI