On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 13:31 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > The profile.d thing has been implemented so that new installs of > squeeze pass LSB compliance checks, but nothing more. > > I would be really disappointed if packages start to use it. It is a > feature that in general we should not use, as it is equivalent to > modifying /etc/profile directly, and it is very rare that you "need" > to change /etc/profile for your package to work. > > For this reason I think it is not such an important change, and more > to the point: By warning the users in whatever way (including the conffile > mechanism) I would be giving it an importance that it does not deserve.
I fully agree with you that the profile.d stuff is not the best thing and shouldn't be used. Anyway I always thought it would be "policy" or at least "good behaviour" that updating leads to a state which is equal to a fresh installation (of course except and var-files, user modifications, etc.). Otherwise Debian would be like Windows, namely that even though updating, a system ages more and more and gets out of sync, which might sooner or later lead to problems. Might be not the case with base-files, but I recently discover more and more packages which behave like this or do not cleanly uninstall in some cases (e.g. stale dirs in /var or /etc). btw: More and more packages manage their configfiles (or directories in /var) in their pre/post inst scripts and not via the conffile mechanism. I wonder why? It was so nice to be always able to definitely identify to which package a file belongs to. Best wishes, Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
