On Mon 28 Mar 2016 at 20:58:13 (+1300), chrisb@localhost.localdomain wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 10:00:53AM -0500, David Wright wrote: > > Now, every time there's a security fix, you're going to be quizzed > > over what to do about your modified configuration file because Debian > > wants to overwrite your modified /etc/systemd/system/foo.target. > > Umm, guess what the normal current behaviour is. > > > Or at some time in the future, you decide to revert to the Debian > > version. > > It's more often than not a particular feature or option you want to > change, right? > > > You have to juggle the files /etc/systemd/system/foo.target > > and /etc/systemd/system/foo.target.orig instead of just removing > > the link /etc/systemd/system/foo.target -> /lib/systemd/system/foo.target > > > > > or > > > /usr/share/doc/systemd/system/halt.target.default ? > > You do comment your configuration files, right? > Also do you delete old configuration options or comment out the line? > > [snipped personal preference stuff]
Snip away. I said in my posting https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/03/msg01032.html that I was expressing my own views on the way links are placed in /etc/systemd/ to override the defaults in /lib/systemd/. John Hasler asked a specific question, albeit rather open-ended, which I answered in specific terms, making necessary assumptions. If you don't like the methods, don't use them. I'm not interested in spending my time answering your easy-to-pose rhetorical questions (two of which immediately follow a line that I didn't write) with well-thought out replies. After all, you haven't clarified your point in the same post. Cheers, David.
