>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 14:07:04 +0100, >> Matt Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Personally I use the ask-about-overwrite question in debconf > because the last time this thread came up the only sensible > solution was put forward in the attached email. Now, I'm all for a > better solution when it is determined what that is, *but* I'm not > for a witch hunt based on what was seen to be previous best > practice. I'm sorry that all of us can't participate in all the discussions on -devel, and some times the optimal solutions are not reached. But when these solutions were starting to get implemented, I did point out the policy violations, and even filed a few serious bugs about them. I did not have the time or the energy then to do much more. Around the same time, ucf was written to allow one to manage a configuration file, allowing one to generate configuration files on the fly, and still afford the user changes dpkg like protection. In any case, pointing to an old discussion on -devel is not a justification for not preserving user changes. Asking the admin whether one may violate Debian policy ought not to be a license to do as one wishes. Secondly, this isnot a witch hunt. What is being done is that a policy violation in older practice is being pointed out. Alternatives are being discussed; a witch hunt would have involved mass RC bug filings. Debconf did not suddenly give people a reason to not preserve user changes; amd we had already rejected destruction of user changes before (one could have written a mainainter script in 1995 that asked the user once, populated a file in /var/lib/, and forever destroyed user changes, way before debconf). manoj -- Pardon this fortune. Database under reconstruction. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C