On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 09:55:37AM +0300, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:37:38 +0100 > Hugo Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 1 - They seem to implement some small changes in the configuration > > layout of dspam, which i personally think as improvements, and didn't > > seem to be a bit too much the "debian way". > > I object to including to config changes: > - I don't see the need for it, dspam's .conf file is simpler/shorter > enough to need more that one file.
It's simple: it makes it easier to package dspam into seperate
functionalities. For example, the debian package has a seperate package
for mysql support, that creates a file in the .d directory and
configures the mysql driver.
> - it brings in unneeded overhead (dir/file reading)
overhead?? how much overhead is it, actually, to read one directory and
its included files? especially since it's just done once, upon startup,
i think it's negligible overhead.
> - the way it is now it's distro specific (/etc/dspam/dspam.d/) so if
> this would go in it should respect via ./configure the PREFIX and the
> 'dspam.d' should be also configurable (there's no such thing on BSDs).
I beg to differ. FreeBSD, as far as I know, doesn't enforce a particular
layout in /usr/local/etc/<package>. For example, it is common practice
to split the apache configuration files in multiple files for the
different domains...
> so if this needed (required by hier(7) or something) on debian and it
> needs to be included upstream develop the patch to work for the rest of
> us as well.
It is required on debian because as part of the Debian Policy, it is
forbidden for a package to edit another's files (so the mysql package
can't edit dspam.conf directly).
As for "working for the rest of us", I don't see how the patch breaks
anything for "the rest of us"...
A.
--
L'Art n'est pas un bureau d'anthropométrie.
- Léo Ferré, "Préface"
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
