Steve McIntyre wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: > >Marco d'Itri wrote: > >> 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.
Machine-specific configuration belongs in /etc. The default behavior of the tools doesn't. Josh Triplett provided multiple technical reasons why etc-overrides-lib is preferable. The ONLY technical reason you gave to prefer traditional conffiles was that there already is a "set of tools" for that in Debian. Who's the one choosing his preferred configuration format based on the limitations of his preferred packaging system here? Hint: it's not Red Hat. -- 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/1336598531.2227.23.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid