On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 01:41:32PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On a related note...
> While we might criticise rpm for its bad conffile handling, dpkg is
> itself fairly woeful, and if we change one thing for wheezy+1, it
> should be sane conffile handling. dpkg should never "forget" about
> conff
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 13:41:32 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:53:34AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> > >If dpkg kept a copy of the original configuration file (to be retrieved
> > >at all times), it would be easier to spot local changes.
> >
Roger Leigh writes:
> I would much rather we had a more general mechanism of storing the real
> configuration files (as opposed to just md5s) by dpkg itself, which
> would enable proper merging of admin changes between old and new
> conffiles, and perhaps also allow dpkg to implement ucf-like con
3 matches
Mail list logo
