> Well, this is one of those items where it's not clear what the 'correct' > answer is. > Bob and I both felt that Warning was too strong. Nothing is 'wrong' > it's just that a file exists that could possibly be updated. For some > products, debian will go into a mode where you can use your copy, > replace, diff or edit.
Read what I wrote in bugzilla about this http://bugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=343#c1 > I think ideally, that is what should happen on > debian, for RH based releases, I'm not sure what they do. I just ran > into a situation where phppgadmin MADE me update it's conf file to the > dist one. I felt that was too strong a nudge. I still like NOTE: for > this particular situation. Just the Scheduler.conf case? What do you think about the other cases? > As for the case of specifying --overwrite or changing the makefile, I > don't see this as an issue, they want new copies of those files. I > don't see the point as to how Warnings relate to this particular case. They don't, that's exactly the point I was making: informed users that ask for new files won't see the WARNING. I have an idea to allow the user to select if they want overwrite or not, I will implement it soon. I'll have to think about how that affects what warnings we issue. -- Matt Taggart [email protected] _______________________________________________ fossology mailing list [email protected] http://fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology
