tags 511652 wontfix thanks Hi Scott,
it's great to see there's an Ubuntu package even though this is a rather specialized program - thanks! On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 02:35:39AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > * Modify the package so that the udev rules aren't actually installed by > default, and instruct the user to copy out of examples and then modify; > otherwise they'll get conffile hell forever after. Is this a general Ubuntu policy of "no empty conffiles" that you're implementing here? Having spent some time thinking about this, I'm not convinced this is the best way for this particular package. First, in my view (and I'm also the upstream author) the program is feature-complete and bigger changes to the conffile are very unlikely. Furthermore, the conffile is very simple, just a few lines of text. On upgrade, a diff will tell the user what is being changed, and I guess it will be easy to keep one's own configuration or "port" one's own settings to the new conffile. Your solution has the disadvantage that the manually added configuration file will stay behind forever when the package is purged. The whole conffile mechanism is designed to help users migrate their settings to newer versions of a package, so why shouldn't we use it? What happens if a (theoretical) future version of the package breaks existing configuration files? With a manually-added file, there will be no indication that a problem might exist. With a conffile, there will be a warning, which can be ignored by the user if he is confident the old settings are OK... Cheers, Richard -- __ _ |_) /| Richard Atterer | \/¯| http://atterer.net ¯ '` ¯ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
