Steve McIntyre wrote: > Uoti Urpala wrote: > >Who's the one choosing his preferred configuration format based on the > >limitations of his preferred packaging system here? Hint: it's not Red > >Hat. > > *yawn* > > When you've got something constructive to add to Debian development, > let us know. Until that point, please go away and stop trolling.
I have given technical reasons to prefer etc-overrides-lib semantics. You failed to address any of the reasons I or others have given. Instead you started by bashing Red Hat, and then gave as your only reason to prefer traditional conffile semantics the same motivation you had just alleged Red Hat of having and had bashed them for. If you post fallacious nonsense, there usually isn't much more to say to that except point out that it IS fallacious nonsense. If you want to have a constructive discussion, then try to explain what you think is wrong with the arguments for etc-overrides-libs, or what technical advantages you think the traditional conffile model has which would be more important. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1336605182.2227.34.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid