> It is about what _users_ expect, and this is what users > expect, you have Neal, Harley and Marco back over there who think this > is a good.
My position is the following: it is annoying to have which I have modified overwritten. As I understood the original patch, it elided this annoying behavior by disabling the installation of files that would likely replace files which were modified by the user. This is a behavior which I have encountered and found annoying. I agree with Roland that `make install' is not a package manager nor should we pretend that it is. On the other hand, the files we are talking about are basically templates that a package manager would modify and if we consider them as templates then I think not installing them is fine. (Hence, we just provide them as samples for package maintainers.) Roland's statement also begs the question: what is the purpose of `make install'? If it is not a package manager (and hence not for users) then it is either for package maintainers or for developers. In the former case, they are likely to customize these files. Alternatively, if we change the system, they can install it themselves in their package. The latter will likely find it annoying. In fact, several people who build the Hurd and install it have said so. Further, since we already have a policy, as Alfred pointed out, to not overwrite certain system configuration files, I think this supports the argument that rc and runsystem are eligible for special treatment. If Roland maintains, however, that rc and runsystem are not templates but an integral part of the system then I think we should stay with the status quo. If he agrees that these are templates for package managers, then I think we should only install them if they do not already exist. Thanks, Neal _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
