> > Quoting policy: > > > > These two styles of configuration file handling must not be mixed, for > > that way lies madness: `dpkg' will ask about overwriting the file > > every time the package is upgraded. > > No it won't because after -6 the file will be managed by ucf. [...]
You are right that dpkg will not ask you about updating the file, because the file is not a conffile in the dpkg sense. But I was not quoting policy for the conffile mechanism itself but for the consequences of using it: The UCF mechanism works in exactly the same way as dpkg conffile mechanism, so instead of dpkg asking about this file over and over again on upgrades, we will have a *UCF* prompt asking about this file over and over again on upgrades. There is not a paragraph in policy speaking about UCF yet, but the spirit of policy is clearly violated by having 10.ssl.conf as a UCF-managed file. > If you have modified 10-ssl.conf then you will get a debconf dialog on > upgrades where you are given the opportunity to accept the new version, keep > the old version or merge differences just as if it is a dpkg-managed conffile. > If you haven't modified it, you will get the packages version just as if it is > a dpkg-managed conffile. I am sorry but I fail to see your objection here. My objection is that policy says that the conffile mechanism is only appropriate for files having a default that may work for everybody, and the rationale is that if most people need to modify it, then most people will get prompted on upgrades over and over again. Since UCF and the conffile mechanism behaves in the same way when the file is not the default, it should naturally follow that the UCF mechanism is not appropriate either, unless there is a default which works for most people. The current default disables SSL, which is insecure. We can't honestly claim that an insecure default "will work for most people". > [...] > I hope I have satisfactorily explained why this isn't a bug at all. I am > closing it. Actually, you have not. Policy says prompting should be reduced to a minimum. By using UCF on a file not having a good default that will work for most people, this package is not following policy at all. As I said in the initial report, I will not discuss about this being RC or not, this is up to you, but based on current policy, this is still a bug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
