Emmet, am Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 09:51:27PM +0900 hast du folgendes geschrieben: > Depending on the nature of configuration parsing for the package > concerned, it may be safer to modify the code to provide safe defaults > for missing configuration entries. If one updates a conffile, one is > asking the user to manage merging any local configuration changes, and > in the case of many of our conffiles, assuming that all supplementary > included configuration is compatible with the change made. If one > instead modifies the configuration in a postinst, one may affect future > upgrades, perhaps unfortunately in cases where the user has not made > any local configuration changes. If one imitates full configuration > parsing in a postinst, with the intent of providing a safe configuration > change, either with a new file or preserving user variations in a safe > manner, one might be confident in the safety of the change, but this may > require significant effort, and involve a higher degree of changes to > the package as a whole than setting defaults in the code directly.
except that you are not allowed to touch a conffile from maintainer scripts in any case (policy 10.7.3). Normal configuration files don't get this guarantee, though. Kind regards Philipp Kern
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
