On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Santiago Vila wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote: > > > > The policy does not explain why they should *all* be conffiles. > > > > I can think of a reason to modify almost any /etc/init.d/* script, on the > > grounds that they effect the startup behavior of the system. > > /sbin/init does also effect the startup behavior of the system and does > not mean it have to be a conffile. > > > The object here is to make things consistant. > > There are several ways to be consistent. One of them is making all init.d > script conffiles even when they do not need to be. Another of them > is make conffiles the scripts that need to be conffiles and not make them > when they do not need it. I don't see the first way is more consistent > than the second way.
Then give me a concrete example of an init.d script that doesn't need to be a conffile. I'm certain I can find a way to change it. You haven't proven to me that there is a useful, obvious test for when a file should or shouldn't be a conffile. > > Why are you so opposed to them being conffiles anyway, > > I am NOT opposed to them being conffiles. I am opposed to them being > conffiles without a rationale. I've given the rational. If they're all conffiles, then you can't be suprised when one of them isn't. Can I bill you for my lost time when one of these "init.d scripts that isn't a conffile because Santiago didn't think it needed to be" clobbers my local changes? > > it doesn't make any difference to someone who never changes them. > > Let's make a conffile every script in /usr/bin, then. There is an easy way to override those already, it's called /usr/local/bin
