On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Hector Oron wrote: > Hello, > > 2010/11/25 Santiago Vila <[email protected]>: > > On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Julien Danjou wrote: > > > >> That's why dpkg has a prompts on conffile conflicts, asking the admin > >> what to do. > > > > There would not be any conflict if you didn't change the file from lenny, > > If he is the owner of his configuration files, why cannot he change > that file and be respected in an upgrade?
The problem is not respecting the changes when there are changes, Both the dpkg conffile mechanism and the current /etc/profile handling respect the changes. The problem is upgrading the file when you didn't change it. Having a profile.d when you didn't have one, adding a directory to the default PATH, or dropping the default umask (and maybe more changes to come) are changes big enough, IMHO, to not do them automatically. This is the reason why I consider dpkg conffile mechanism to be bad for /etc/profile. This file is an extension of /home/user/.profile. for every user. Modifying it automatically just because there is a new default can make a lot of people to be really upset. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
