hi, On Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 13:45, Eduard Bloch wrote: > README.Debian tells you such details. Did you care to read it?
No. Of course not. Did you expect me to? > > Alternatively, this whole debconf indirection could be scrapped. I'm > > not exactly sure what value it brings here anyway. > > And replaced with what exactly? Please tell me something new, which does > not modify the conffile. Why do you install files in /etc at all if you expect the admin not to modify them? If this is your goal, you should put them in /usr/share and update the -c option on the commandline to point to that location instead. Then you could symlink from this /usr/share directory to a file or two in /etc that I am actually allowed to modify. If I see something in /etc then I more or less assume that I'm allowed to configure it. I'm willing to deal with the keep/replace questions from dpkg when they come. Putting a file in /etc and then effectively ignoring its contents is just weird... Doing so without even a warning that this is the case is only going to cause people to assume that your package is buggy. See also https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt-cacher-ng/+bug/1279021 for several other people hit by this. Documentation aside, the current state of affairs is _extremely_ misleading. Pointing to the README and saying "I told you so" doesn't really make it any less the case. Cheers
