Package: ucf Version: 2.0020 Severity: wishlist Hi,
It would be nice if you could implement a new ucfrm tool, to handle the removal of a ucf-managed configuration file (after asking for permission, unless it was unmodified). See the attached message for explanations. Cheers, Nicolas -- System Information: Debian Release: 4.0 APT prefers stable APT policy: (900, 'stable'), (800, 'testing'), (700, 'unstable'), (600, 'experimental') Architecture: powerpc (ppc) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.23-irma Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Versions of packages ucf depends on: ii coreutils 5.97-5.3 The GNU core utilities ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.11etch1 Debian configuration management sy Versions of packages ucf recommends: ii debconf-utils 1.5.11etch1 debconf utilities -- debconf information excluded
--- Begin Message ---On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:50:05 +0200, Nicolas Boullis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hi Manoj (and possibly others), I have a package that use to generate > a configuration file, managed with ucf, that is now obsolete (a file > in /etc/modutils). > I think I should stop generating this file in the next release of the > package, and should consider removing it on upgrade. > Removing the file unconditionnally would certainly be a policy > violation; this file might have been used to store anything important > (such as comments about the configuration, that are still relevant for > the other configuration file in /etc/modprobe.d). > It seems to me that the removal of a configuration file should be a > change like any other: I can do it if the configuration file has not > been modified by the admin, or if the admin agreed for the removal. > But then, for consistency reasons, I think that all packages that want > to remove a configuration file should use similar templates. This > would be made easier if ucf could handle asking for removal, or at > least provide templates that packages could use. What do you think of > that? Hmm. This would change the signature of the call, since currently it is used as ucf [options] new dest. The removal could be called ucfrm; and it would be separate. This is a nice idea, please file a wishlist bug for ucfrm (perhaps quoting this email). > Of course, the package should remember about the file if it is not > removed, but it looks like ucfr and ucfq (that I discovered recently) > are the perfect tools for that. manoj -- Imitation is the sincerest form of plagiarism. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--- End Message ---
