* Josh Berkus ( wrote:
> However, Debian is *never* going to add conf.d to the packages if we
> don't recommend it as an upstream project.  And, frankly, I use the
> packages anyway, which would certainly include
> anything which was decided on this list.

Those are both categorial false claims.  Debian certainly does not ship
with 'trust' auth, nor do our PGDG packages.  They also move the conf
files out of the data directory.  Last, but not least, they absolutely
enable conf.d directories even when that is not the default upstream.

Additionally, I fully expect and hope that the
packages to follow the Debian/Ubuntu package management- having those
diverge would absolutely be a horrible idea and cause a great deal of
trouble for our users.  Ideally, we can all agree, but this notion that
the PGDG must follow what happens on -hackers is simply wrong, we need
include and coordinate with the OS package maintainers.

> It's more than in interesting thought.  It's the difference between
> having 20 lines of backwards compatibility code, and having 150 plus a
> bunch of additional user documentation and setup.

If I was writing the tool, I'm pretty sure that I'd be writing all that
code either way.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to