"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Goswin von Brederlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> "Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> "Justin Pryzby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 06:00:48PM +0100, Danai SAE-HAN wrote: >>>>> Package "freetype1-tools" owns a configuration file, namely >>>>> /etc/ttf2pk/ttfonts.map. >>>> It is a conffile, because it is contained in the package: > >> >> That won't work right. On the next upgrade with a changed conffile pkg >> will claim the package was modified by the user while in fact it was >> modifed by the package. That is just wrong. >> >> If you need to modify the file then don't make it a conffile. Create >> it completly automatically, e.g. in /var/lib/package/, or make it a >> configuartion file and use ucf. > > You misunderstood. I said that it is possible that a Configuration > file that is stored in the .deb could be a non-conffile. > The previous poster had asserted that it must be. I had showed how it > might not be the case. > > > Basically The package could leave the file as a plain file, and in > preinst gather any user changes, let the new version destroy the old > version (AFAIK dpkg won't compain because it is NOT a conffile), and > then restore user changes.) > > Just re-read my post thinking I was talking about a normal file rather > than a confile.
Debian Policy 10.7.3: | The other way to do it is via the maintainer scripts. In this case, | the configuration file must not be listed as a conffile and must not | be part of the package distribution. So our previous poster is completly right by saing it is a conffile since it is contained in the package. Anything else would be a policy violation. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]