Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Apologies; I think I was on another planet when I did that. You are
> of course totally right both about protocol and content. Reverting
> that change. I'm going to write:
>
> It may either be a conffile or a configuration
> file maintained by the package main
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 11:37:03AM +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
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
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 reduce
> 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 reduce those prompts seems like a good idea.
Not sure if that is the rationale
Hello world,
Policy section 10.3.2 (version 3.5.5.0), says, among other things:
[...] To ease the burden on the system administrator, such
configurable values should not be placed directly in the script.
Instead, they should be placed in a file in `/etc/default', which
typical
10 matches
Mail list logo
