On 18-Jul-99, 14:43 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm against saying that "every conffile is a configuration file" simply > > because I don't want to lock out some other legitimate use of the > > conffile mechanism. > > The very nature of the conffile mechanism seems to be to protect the > sysadmin from losing locally configurations. Having a conffile which > does not have this purpose seems silly, at least at this point.
Exactly, except that I would change the phrase "losing local configurations" to "losing local changes". If someone has package that needs to protect local changes to a file, the the conffile mechanism is a good way to do that, and I don't want people filing bugs against that package just because "file x in package y is not a configuration file, and the policy says all conffiles are configuration files." > If we allow for this possibility, then we should at least take care to > clarify what happens to conffiles in the later sections of the changed > text. (Can't remember which para off-hand....) Not sure what you mean by "...what happens to conffiles", but if you mean the details of how dpkg treats conffiles, then I don't want that in policy; there is a reference to the packaging manual already, and that should be sufficient. Steve
