On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 21:08, Chris Waters wrote: > Some packages may require a config file, in which case, I think they > would be justified in recreating it.
If a configuration file contains a syntax error introduced by the admin, maintainer scripts aren't allowed to fix it. Why should the absence of the configuration file (even if that too is considered an error) be treated any differently? But we are getting ahead of ourselves. First let us decide to recognize in policy that some packages do recreate configuration files, so that _currently_ it is a bad idea for the admin to delete a configuration file and assume that it will stay deleted. > How about [...] we require *documentation* for config files. That might be a good idea, but it is independent of the question at hand. Cheers -- Thomas
