Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles
On Wed, 13 Sept 2023 at 10:44, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 23:13 +0200, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 15:57, Daniel Gröber > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Luca, > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 01:06:06PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > > > > I want to question whether removing these conffiles is a good idea at > > > > > all. I'm probably one of the few people that actually muck around in > > > > > there > > > > > but it seems like this is going to break things for any users that do. > > > > > > > > As far as I understand dpkg's conffile machinery should recognize if > > > > you changed anything, and leave it in place. Upstream moved the > > > > default ones to /usr, so we just follow what they do. > > > > > > Right. Think of an admin having to adjust these config files though: > > > previously they could just `editor /etc/iproute2/rt_tables` and get on > > > with > > > things. Now anyone needing to do that will have to do a doubletake, figure > > > out why /etc/iproute2 is missing, realize that it's at /usr/lib/iproute2 > > > now, copy that over and finally edit. > > > > > > Is that friction really warrented to cater to a specialized niche > > > use-case? > > > > > > Please consider overriding upstream's decision here. > > > > Yes, it is warranted, both because it's exactly the correct behaviour > > for a package, and also because we are certainly not spending time and > > resources to go against upstream choices, especially when they are the > > right choices. > > What is the plan for handling updates? AIUI we've lost the dpkg > conffile handling but it doesn't look like it's been replaced by > anything (e.g. like using ucf to prompt when an update happened > perhaps?). Same as everything else that uses drop-ins and hermetic-usr since forever. No more pointless noise and wasting time solving conflicts by hand in whitespace changes, comment typos and so on.
Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles
On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 23:13 +0200, Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 15:57, Daniel Gröber > wrote: > > > > Hi Luca, > > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 01:06:06PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > > > I want to question whether removing these conffiles is a good idea at > > > > all. I'm probably one of the few people that actually muck around in > > > > there > > > > but it seems like this is going to break things for any users that do. > > > > > > As far as I understand dpkg's conffile machinery should recognize if > > > you changed anything, and leave it in place. Upstream moved the > > > default ones to /usr, so we just follow what they do. > > > > Right. Think of an admin having to adjust these config files though: > > previously they could just `editor /etc/iproute2/rt_tables` and get on with > > things. Now anyone needing to do that will have to do a doubletake, figure > > out why /etc/iproute2 is missing, realize that it's at /usr/lib/iproute2 > > now, copy that over and finally edit. > > > > Is that friction really warrented to cater to a specialized niche use-case? > > > > Please consider overriding upstream's decision here. > > Yes, it is warranted, both because it's exactly the correct behaviour > for a package, and also because we are certainly not spending time and > resources to go against upstream choices, especially when they are the > right choices. What is the plan for handling updates? AIUI we've lost the dpkg conffile handling but it doesn't look like it's been replaced by anything (e.g. like using ucf to prompt when an update happened perhaps?). Ian.
Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles
On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 15:57, Daniel Gröber wrote: > > Hi Luca, > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 01:06:06PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > > I want to question whether removing these conffiles is a good idea at > > > all. I'm probably one of the few people that actually muck around in there > > > but it seems like this is going to break things for any users that do. > > > > As far as I understand dpkg's conffile machinery should recognize if > > you changed anything, and leave it in place. Upstream moved the > > default ones to /usr, so we just follow what they do. > > Right. Think of an admin having to adjust these config files though: > previously they could just `editor /etc/iproute2/rt_tables` and get on with > things. Now anyone needing to do that will have to do a doubletake, figure > out why /etc/iproute2 is missing, realize that it's at /usr/lib/iproute2 > now, copy that over and finally edit. > > Is that friction really warrented to cater to a specialized niche use-case? > > Please consider overriding upstream's decision here. Yes, it is warranted, both because it's exactly the correct behaviour for a package, and also because we are certainly not spending time and resources to go against upstream choices, especially when they are the right choices.
Processed: Re: Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles
Processing control commands:
> severity -1 serious
Bug #1051577 {Done: Luca Boccassi } [iproute2] iproute2:
obsolete conffiles
Severity set to 'serious' from 'normal'
--
1051577: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1051577
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
