On Sun, 18 Apr 2010, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > "Changes in the default files are not important enough > to warn the user" > => I can imagine some scenarios where this is important. Most recent > example is the addition of support for /etc/profile.d in order to > conform to LSB. > People that do not regularly diff the base-files won't notice that > changes to /etc/profile, and /etc/profile.d will remain non-functional > on upgrades. > I guess it's easy to think of similar issues.
The profile.d thing has been implemented so that new installs of squeeze pass LSB compliance checks, but nothing more. I would be really disappointed if packages start to use it. It is a feature that in general we should not use, as it is equivalent to modifying /etc/profile directly, and it is very rare that you "need" to change /etc/profile for your package to work. For this reason I think it is not such an important change, and more to the point: By warning the users in whatever way (including the conffile mechanism) I would be giving it an importance that it does not deserve. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
