"JG" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
JG> Can I check if I've understood correctly. What happens if I edit
JG> /etc/mime-magic; does /etc/mime-magic.dat get automatically recreated
JG> or do things break if I don't update it manually? And how do I do the
JG> latter?
This
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: jdg Mon Jun 18 16:21:10 PDT 2001
Modified files:
debian : changelog
Log message:
* And make a note of the /etc/default stuff in the changelog too.
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: jdg Mon Jun 18 16:18:37 PDT 2001
Modified files:
. : policy.sgml
Log message:
* Correct the /etc/default conffile/config file stuff I mucked up
(sorry Joey!) [10.3.2]
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 02:31:47PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Well I don't know about you, but most of the files in /etc/default on my
> system do not need to be changed. They're all sensible defaults.
> They're certianly no more likely to be changed than random other
> conffiles in /etc (with the s
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 11:57:16PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Can a file that is not human readable (editable) be a conffile?
>
> gnome-libs-data declares /etc/mime-magic.dat (which is some kind of
> binary database generated from the textual conffile /etc/mime-magic)
> as such. The maintain
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 11:37:03AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > From 11.7.3:
>
> > The easy way to achieve this behavior is to make the configuration
> > file a `conffile'. This is appropriate only if it is possible to
> > distribute a default version that will work for most instal
Can a file that is not human readable (editable) be a conffile?
gnome-libs-data declares /etc/mime-magic.dat (which is some kind of
binary database generated from the textual conffile /etc/mime-magic)
as such. The maintainer thinks this is correct -- I obviously don't.
I'm bringing this up on -po
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 05:36:34PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > > Does this change have a rationale (and if so, could it be included in a
> > > footnote), or should it be reverted?
> > >
> >
> > The file is expected to be changed, which would trigger the 'get the n
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 10:44:24AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 12:13:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > All conffiles are expected to be changed...
> From 11.7.3:
> The easy way to achieve this behavior is to make the configuration
> file a `conffile'. This
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 12:13:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 05:36:34PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > > Does this change have a rationale (and if so, could it be included in a
> > > footnote), or should it be reverted?
> > The file is expected to be changed, whic
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 05:36:34PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > Does this change have a rationale (and if so, could it be included in a
> > footnote), or should it be reverted?
> >
>
> The file is expected to be changed, which would trigger the 'get the new
> version?' prompt. Trying to
11 matches
Mail list logo
