=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I see a `config package' as a package that includes/modifies other > packages conffiles. Using packages for this is ignoring the concept of a > package. What if you remove one of these packages? What if some programs > whose files are modified are not installed? What if one of these programs > is installed _after_ the config-package? Should the config-package depend > on every progam it configures? config-packages will depend on changes in > several packages...
I would not advocate implementing such a package this way. Most of the config files that we would be interested in fixing for newbies can include or source another file. Take sh-like shells for example. We would have the /etc/profile file (that is the file provided by the bash package) source another file (if it exists) that would be provided by our hypothetical config-package. We can even use the update-alternatives tool to sort out which config file will be soured when multiple config-packages are present on a system. This is more in line with what I was thinking. Milan Zamazal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1. I don't know whether I like the idea of a single config package or not > but I can see the following questions: > - Is it easy/possible to maintain single config package for many > programs? I don't think that it would be too difficult. Such a configuration package would not include configuration data that are essential for the operation of any part of a Debian system. This package would contain only fluff -- that is, stuff to make the system look nicer. Making such a package would involve collecting all of the preferences that the developer feels would be useful or pretty and packaging them together to share with others. > - Isn't it better to let this work to each package maintainer because > he does probably understand it very well? I don't think there > are many (hundreds) packages which need some kind of newbie > customization. If I understand it well it should be about ten to > twenty files in `/etc/skel/'. Adding preference changes to the files in /etc/skel has been discussed before on this mailing list. If I recall correctly, it is generally preferred that changes be made to the system-wide configuration files rather than the /etc/skel files (for example, /etc/profile instead of /etc/skel/.bash_profile). However, I think you are correct, there shouldn't be a large number of packages that need a little boost to become newbie-friendlier. > - On the other side wouldn't be better to let this configuration > things to one package with one maintainer ("newbies manager"), who > could watch newbies questions on debian.user etc. so he knows what > the *real* problems are? Thank you. You have just clearly stated my main argument for a newbie-configuration package. Finally, I feel that I should add a bit to the `rm -r *' discussion. Wouldn't it be nice to provide newbies with the alias rm='rm -i'? I've seen this done on the systems here at my school and on systems where I have worked. This alias is usually defined in /etc/skel/.profile (or some such file), so that it is present on all new accounts. (Notice that I am talking about modifying the files in the /etc/skel directory when I said above that this should not be done.) This trick prevents a new user from inadvertently erasing important files until which point he or she tires of confirming each file deletion and learns how to edit his or her .profile to remove the annoying alias. It's just a thought. Brian -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .