On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:49 AM, David Timms <[email protected]> wrote: > > Tend to agree, except, the subtle push in the right direction eg better > matching the FHS, and patches that make it, and config relocations of the > config that could help lead upstream into a better config solution. Once > they see it working, hopefully they would be more likely to accept the > change ;-)
Since my last email to the list, I tracked down the upstream discussion on this [1], and it looks like upstream is planning on changing the names of these configuration files anyway. So if we implement this now, we might end up with two %post hacks in the spec file instead of one. I agree with subtle push idea :-) But I wonder if that might be better served with a trac ticket filed upstream? - Ken
