> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Hands) wrote on 10.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I have one point to add to this. Handling files not mentioned > > > in the *.list file was one way of several packages to handle/edit a > > > common file, for example, if a bunch of packages need /etc/foo to > > > exist, and foo can contain the word bar or bah, then any package, in > > > the postinst, finding that /etc/foo did not exist, can question the > > > user and create the file (the other packages then accept it). > > > > In this situation, would it not be better to have an etc-foo package, that > > handles the creation of /etc/foo, and have the other packages depend upon it > > ? > > Careful. You're about to outlaw update-alternatives.
No, I understand the difference --- we were talking about a file that gets created by any of a group of packages, and then gets treated as if it belonged to each of them. This is just a mess IMHO. How would any of this group of packages ever remove the file in question, if it was the last package of the group to be removed ? At least with update-alternative, the various versions disappear as you remove packages, but that wasn't what we were talking about anyway. Cheers, Phil. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
