Manoj Srivastava wrote: > You are mistaken. In the message archived at the URL > <http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9802/msg00353.html> > Christian states: > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Manoj> why are all conffiles also not configuration files? > Christian> I guess they are (or at least, should be :). > Manoj> Why are conffiles not a proper subset of configuration files? > Christian> I think they are. > ______________________________________________________________________
Frankly, Christian comes off as very confused [1] and self-contradictory in that message. I don't believe this message represents the final conclusion of the policy manager, it's just Christian trying to get a handle on the debate. He has never posted one of his "policy weekly" messages on this, or changed the policy manual. Anyway, I continue to side with Ian Jackson and Dale Scheetz - quoting dale from http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9802/msg00269.html: > It has always been my understanding that a conffile was a special class > file with respect to dpkg and nothing more. It has special rules for > replacement, but every time I asked Ian J. I was told that a conffile was > not the same thing as a config file. -- see shy jo [1] Christian: "I just read the whole tread and now I'm really confused 8-)" -- http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9802/msg00319.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
