Le vendredi 18 février 2005 à 14:15 -0600, Steve Greenland a écrit : > On 18-Feb-05, 09:06 (CST), Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Le vendredi 18 f??vrier 2005 ?? 08:37 -0600, Steve Greenland a ??crit : > > > No where in the Debconf note does it say which is "the upstream way". > > > > This has nothing to do in a debconf note. > > Sigh. Did you read the thread? W. Ballard wrote: > > > The exim4 config asks you if you want itty bitty or one monolothic > > config file. It offers you the option of doing it the upstream way.
How is it relevant? > And yes, it does belong there. It could easily add the something like: > > The single monolithic file is the normal upstream configuration, > while the other choice is a Debian innovation that works better with > large installations or ISPs needing to support many virtual domains. > > For newbies, this is the first MTA installation they will have ever > seen. Help 'em out, for Pete's sake. Such a question will never help them. Why the hell would a newbie care of a package diverging from upstream (if he understands what an upstream is)? The newbie wants a working installation, full stop. That's why this question isn't high priority: it isn't even shown to the newbie. And the fact exim4 diverges from upstream has *absolutely nothing* to do in a debconf note. Debconf is here to promt users, not to document changes. We have README.Debian and changelog.Debian for that. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
