On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 10:19:21PM +0100, Ralf Stubner wrote: > On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 14:43 +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > > > > etch_rc_policy.txt sounds differently: > > > > ,---- 3. Configuration files > > | Packages must not modify their own or other packages conffiles > > | programmatically. (The only correct way to modify a conffile is the > > | user running an editor specifically; if anything more automated is > > | required or useful, configuration files must _NOT_ be handled as > > | conffiles) > > `---- > > Hmm, this is much more strict than I thought. It does make sense, > though, since if the admin did not change the file directly, (s)he won't > be able to evaluate the diff presented during an upgrade. Actually this > makes shipping a tool like texconfig rather dubious. If we ship files > like config.ps as configfiles, and the admin runs 'texconfig-sys', this > configfiles will be changed without the admin actually knowing this.
Or we could break policy (no!!) :-) Or suggest modifying policy? > > Running an editor on /etc/default/texpaper with the effect that now > > conffiles get modified programmatically by postinst scripts and > > paperconfig doesn't seem to comply to these requirements. > > This rules out more or less anything that me discussed so far. :-( What > possibilities exist to handle configuration files not as conffiles? Handle it as a configuration file instead. Look at the postinst of devscripts for one (simple) example. Or use ucf. Or something like that. Julian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
