On 4 Sep 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Santiago> But the reason policy says some files should not be > Santiago> conffiles is the following: "Doing this will lead to dpkg > Santiago> giving the user confusing and possibly dangerous options > Santiago> for conffile update when the package is upgraded.", which > Santiago> is completely false for conffiles that never change > > Well, I guess a rationale is that saying `never' anything is > dangerous [...]
Yes, this could be some of the rationale I would like to see. I hope not to be misunderstood. I *agree* with you that the postinst solution is probably better, my only "complain" is that policy (currently) does not give a rationale which is good enough for all cases yet. -- "895004c4c3b4106584e9be1299f8183c" (a truly random sig)
