Hi, On Tue, 04 Sep 2012, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Thus I would like base-files: > > - to ship /etc/os-release.d/debian > > - to ship /etc/os-release as a symlink to the former > > That would be easy indeed. However: What happens when a conffile is > replaced by a symlink to a conffile? Does dpkg handle it gracefully or > does it break horribly?
As long as you don't mark the symlink itself as conffile, it works AFAIK. But since we want the user to be able to override this choice, it's best to not package this symlink and instead to create it in the postinst. Furthermore you probably want to use dpkg-maintscript-helper mv_conffile to rename /etc/os-release as /etc/os-release.d/$VENDORFILE. > My fear here is that we create some kind of "unsolvable bug" like, for > example, #679356. I don't quite understand why the fact that the conffile is marked as obsolete is a problem. It could be a problem if the user had to purge the package and if the file was legitimately owned outside of the knowledge of dpkg by another package. But that's not the case here. > Also: What would happen if the move is made at the same time that the > default conffile is modified? I'm thinking about #681480 reported by > you as well. Nothing special AFAIK. The dpkg-maintscript-helper mv_conffile handles everything properly so that you get the usual dpkg prompt if /etc/os-release was modified by the user, otherwise you get no prompt. > > - to make it easy to add supplementary files in /etc/os-release.d/ > > and to update the symlink (i.e. reuse the VENDORFILE variable that you > > already have) for derivatives > > By "easy" I assume you mean "easy for whoever wants to modify the > package for derived distros". Yes, that would be easy as well. Yes. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
