El 25/11/10 17:56, Julien Danjou escribió:
On Thu, Nov 25 2010, Santiago Vila wrote:
There is nothing to fix. I'm following policy when it says files in /etc
are under the control of the system admin.
Policy does not say *anywhere* that you *have* to use dpkg conffile
mechanism, or that you *have* to upgrade configuration files automatically,
policy just says that changes in configuration files should be
preserved, and base-files does that.
I agree.
The problem I see is that you are killing a feature just to the sake of
being conservative.
Hmm, I don't think so. Killing the feature would be something like
doing "rm /etc/profile.d/*" in the postinst. The current base-files
package does not prevent anyone from using profile.d, it just makes
it to be less automatic (as you have to cp the file by hand) if you
really need that feature on systems upgraded from lenny.
I think profile.d is potentially harmful, as it might encourage package
maintainers to do things which are forbidden by policy. If you read an
old version of the base-files FAQ you'll see what I mean. The reason I
updated the default /etc/profile is that it is mandated by the LSB, so
that we pass compliance tests on newly installed systems.
> Every software in Debian does upgrade any
configuration file even if has not been touched. It's just the way it
works and the way I expect it to work so I can rely on it on standard
installation.
Well, we rely on so many things that sometimes we rely on things which
are contradictory.
We rely on things not to suddenly break, and we sometimes also "rely" or
"expect" a system upgraded to squeeze to be "the same" as a newly
installed squeeze system (which usually includes automatic upgrade of
most configuration files in /etc as you point out).
I think the first thing (non-breakage of already running systems) is
more important than the second thing, so in some sense, the current
handling of /etc/profile should be considered as the least of two evils.
I remember a case where the flex package did not upgrade on purpose
because the new one had a different behaviour. The maintainer considered
that we should not break existing code. I was "upset" because I expected
"apt-get upgrade" to upgrade everything.
With this I mean that we have to draw the line somewhere and it is
almost sure that we can't make everybody happy all the time.
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
