Nicholas Bamber writes:
> On 05/01/11 21:43, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> 10.7.1 already defines both concepts and tries to make it clear that
>> they're not the same thing. I'm happy to enhance those definitions if
>> you can point out to me what made them unclear. (Obviously I know too
>> much abou
On 05/01/11 21:43, Russ Allbery wrote:
10.7.1 already defines both concepts and tries to make it clear that
they're not the same thing. I'm happy to enhance those definitions if you
can point out to me what made them unclear. (Obviously I know too much
about this to be a good first reader of th
Nicholas Bamber writes:
> In fact my understanding was that the conffiles concept was superseded
> by the convention that everything in /etc is or should be a
> "configuration file/conffile" for some package.
The conffiles concept has definitely not been superseded. All that's
happened is that
Russ,
Thanks. Yes I was unaware of the distinction between a configuration
file and a conffile. I must have read it once before, but I'm sure you
will understand that it did not stick even if the policy insists the
distinction is important.
In fact my understanding was that the conffiles conce
Nicholas Bamber writes:
> Second paragraph: "The maintainer scripts must not alter a conffile of
> /any/ package, including the one the scripts belong to." This statement
> can be construed as prohibiting any automated generation of
> configuration files, and any user interaction with the constr
Today I stumbled across this section in the policy and found it to be
confusing, self contradictory, contradictory
with the debconf man page and contradictory with common sense.
The proposals seem quite sensible if perhaps not in their final form,
but reading through the entire thread it seems
6 matches
Mail list logo
