On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Adam Nielsen <a.niel...@shikadi.net> wrote: > I have no problem with supporting it, but likewise I think segregating it > would be useful too without introducing any limitations. For example, while > unlikely, if Debian decides that all pidfiles should now go into /tmp > instead, all users will have to examine lighttpd.conf and merge in the > change. Those people using a configuration management system like Puppet > won't get to see dpkg's nice output, and will have to merge the changes by > hand in their repos and push them out to all their machines.
Isn't that a limitation of Puppet? > That's true, but my argument is that you shouldn't impede progress just in > case someone might come along with a better idea one day :-) I realise you > don't want to keep changing things, but to be honest, if each change is > backwards compatible then you are incrementally improving things, which is > always good. The point is that it's not a perfect improvement. Having conf bits in more files means it's harder for a normal user to find/read/update all bits. We do agree that (in principle) it would be nice to support stuff like Puppet better. So let's say we've got lighttpd.conf and platform.conf. Where would the ipv6 include go? I'd say platform.conf. Since you wanted to disable the ipv6 include, you'd have to modify platform.conf and you'd have the same problem as you do now, right? -- Olaf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
