On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Davide G.M.Salvetti wrote: > AH> Yes, correct. I should have said that files in /etc are edittable > AH> config files. This means either using dpkg's conffile mechanism, > AH> or, easily broken maintainer script versions. > > The Debian auctex and mailcrypt packages don't mark > /etc/emacs/site-start.d/50auctex.el and > /etc/emacs/site-start.d/50mailcrypt.el as conffiles.
This is fine, as long as the files are not in the deb. Only(not more, not less) files in /etc that are shipped in packages(debs) are to be marked as conffiles. dpkg-deb won't allow you to list a file as a conffile if it doesn't exist in the package. > Those file need not necessarily exist: if they do not, they are > dynamically created at installation time if the user answer yes to the > relevant debconf question, asking if she wants the respective packages > to be auto loaded at her site. > > They are no meant to serve any other purpose, are one-liner, and also > aren't meant to be directly edited by the user (however, if she actually > does it, the packages feature a minimal attempt to preserve her wishes). > They are where they are 'cause the Debian Emacs policy requires them to > be there. Then your package has a serious(RC) bug. Policy(11.7) states that packages which place files in /etc(either by having it in the deb, or thru some maintainer script) *MUST* preserve user edits. This doesn't mean you can interpeted as attempting to save changes. Must is must is must. > Should we change the Debian Emacs policy to allow me to put them > somewhere else? Emacs policy is wrong in this sense then. Emacs policy does not replace Debian Policy, it enhances it. And Debian Policy is very clear about files in /etc.
