Russ Allbery debian.org> writes:
> But right now with configuration in /etc if you have changed *any*
> configuration setting, you then get prompted for *all* configuration
> changes in the package, which I think is Enrico's point. And I agree, I
> kind of like that behavior. Configuration setti
Josh Triplett writes:
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>> I have a general objection against putting (default) configs outside
>> /etc at all. The main problem is, on updates, defaults might silently
>> change, without operators used to look at /etc and comparing current
>> config with new defaults.
> By
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Tanguy Ortolo schrieb:
> > I think having the default configuration values written in a default
> > configuration file under /usr is better than having them harcoded, since
> > it makes it really easier to determine what these defaults are. But not
> > shipping the user c
* Tanguy Ortolo schrieb:
> I think having the default configuration values written in a default
> configuration file under /usr is better than having them harcoded, since
> it makes it really easier to determine what these defaults are. But not
> shipping the user configuration file, I do not kno
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 02:00:23PM +, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
> I think having the default configuration values written in a default
> configuration file under /usr is better than having them harcoded, since
> it makes it really easier to determine what these defaults are.
It's problematic if the
On Freitag, 2. Mai 2008, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> I'm afraid this might be already discussed somewhere
> but I'd like to know how developers think of it.
>
> I recently noticed that there were /etc/postgresql/8.2/main/
> and /etc/postgresql/8.3/main/ so my customization of
> /etc/postgresql/8.2/main
"cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you can for example have 4 config sets (each in its own location):
> - one with the upstream default values
> - one with overrides for upstream settings by maintainer
> - one with cdd-overrides for the settings
> - one with admin-overrid
On Monday 21 November 2005 16:44, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > on the debian-tetex-maint mailing list we often have problems to decide
> > which of the thousands of TeX input files should be treated as
> > configuration files - in principle,
Hi all,
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We are currently thinking about a
>> solution were there would be hardly any conffiles[1], but a local admin
>> could put copies of any file he likes into subdirectories of /etc/texmf.
>> This wo
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> on the debian-tetex-maint mailing list we often have problems to decide
> which of the thousands of TeX input files should be treated as
> configuration files - in principle, each of them can be changed in order
> to change the behavior of the sys
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 11:31:22AM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Hi,
>
> on the debian-tetex-maint mailing list we often have problems to decide
> which of the thousands of TeX input files should be treated as
> configuration files - in principle, each of them can be changed in order
> to change th
On Nov 21, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do others think? Would it be acceptable Policy-wise to handle
> configuration like this?
Yes.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
12 matches
Mail list logo
