Josh Triplett wrote: >Marco d'Itri wrote: >> On May 09, Tollef Fog Heen <tfh...@err.no> wrote: >> > This is something I'm pondering if we should handle in either a systemd >> > trigger or a tool that packages shipping systemd files can call to tell >> > the user about any changes. (Basically a wrapper around ucf, probably.) >> >> The more I think about it, the more I suspect that the correct solution >> would be to just symlink /lib/udev/rules.d/ to /etc/udev/rules.d/ and so >> on. > >Please don't. As a user, I find it highly preferable for packages to >install their default configuration in /lib and just have overrides in >/etc, and I'd love to see that trend continue. That setup lets me >trivially construct personal configuration packages that ship the >overriding files in /etc, without having to play ugly games with >dpkg-divert of conffiles. It also means that I don't get a pile of >noise in etckeeper from all the upgrades of default configurations, so >that my commits to etckeeper primarily consist of my own local changes.
No, really - please *do* do this. The fact that a lot of the software coming out of RedHat development seems to be designed solely for their use, including working around the missing/broken features of RPM, is seriously annoying. Configuration belongs in /etc, we know this. We have a well-designed and implemented set of tools in Debian based on that standard. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1ssdrm-00031g...@mail.einval.com