On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 12:47:29PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I fail to see a reason why we should over ride user changes
> whener we, the maintairners, feel a capricious whimsy to doso, even
> when we believe our way is the one true way, and the silly admin
> ought to know better th
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 09:05:12PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I didn't say that it was the best way to go about things; even Manoj
> > didn't say that.
>
> So you're saying bugs should be filed to encourage packages to choose
> a less optimal way of doing thin
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Policy is not going to be broken by either you having a hissy
> fit, or Thomas proposing silly changes.
I proposed the change because I (mistakenly) though that AJ was
expressing commonly accepted process.
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> The example which came up on debian-devel was that if you delete
Thomas> /etc/inetd.conf, various things will recreate it.
Bug. Preserving user changes is a invariant we would like to
be able to advertize.
Thomas>
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> And, further, you don't actually care which is the best solution, but
Anthony> you're trying to sanctify it for future generations?
Anthony> Look everyone, the policy process failing as you watch!
Bullshit. It is only aj throwing a tantru
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:11:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> justification: this is not a flaw in the policy, at best, this may be
>> a proposal to change policy to codifying, in my opinion, a less
>> desirable behaviour, and should be tre
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 07:54:15PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> We have to have a debate about it because there is an actual
>> substantive disagreement between you and Manoj.
Anthony> Really? What is it? I only saw comments that amoun
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 09:05:12PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I didn't say that it was the best way to go about things; even Manoj
> didn't say that.
So you're saying bugs should be filed to encourage packages to choose
a less optimal way of doing things than what currently happens?
> N
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 12:38:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Why the fuck do we have to have a debate about this?
A wise man once said something like, "how hard is it to give the reasons
why you object to the suggestion, rather than just puffing out your
chest and declaring your opposition?"
Anthony Towns writes:
> Really? What is it? I only saw comments that amount to "I interpret
> policy this way" and "other things do it this way", neither of which is
> a response to my original request for "someone to give a good reason why
> randomly deleting config files of installed packages i
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 07:54:15PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> We have to have a debate about it because there is an actual
> substantive disagreement between you and Manoj.
Really? What is it? I only saw comments that amount to "I interpret
policy this way" and "other things do it this
Anthony Towns writes:
> The. Packages. Are. Not. Broken. It's that simple. How many times have you
> found base-passwd recreating /etc/passwd and /etc/group a nuisance? Never?
> Funny that.
>
> Why the fuck do we have to have a debate about this?
We don't; any behavior here is fine with me, as
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:11:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> justification: this is not a flaw in the policy, at best, this may be
> a proposal to change policy to codifying, in my opinion, a less
> desirable behaviour, and should be treated like any other proposal
For heaven's sake, does s
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> severity 162120 wishlist
> thanks
>
> justification: this is not a flaw in the policy, at best, this may be
> a proposal to change policy to codifying, in my opinion, a less
> desirable behaviour, and should be treated like any other proposal
>
severity 162120 wishlist
thanks
justification: this is not a flaw in the policy, at best, this may be
a proposal to change policy to codifying, in my opinion, a less
desirable behaviour, and should be treated like any other proposal
Hi,
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 162120 wishlist
Bug#162120: debian-policy: Deletion of configuration files--should it be
preserved?
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug trac
Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which may not always be the Right Thing. cf. config files in .d
> directories like cron.d, ip-up.d or similar.
Sure; my wording is quite conservative, merely pointing out current
practice more carefully. I have no particular reason to think current
p
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.6.1
> Severity: important
>
> Section 11.7.3 says that changes to configuration files are supposed to be
> preserved on upgrade. This is not commonly done, however, if the change
> consists in deleting the fi
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.1
Severity: important
Section 11.7.3 says that changes to configuration files are supposed to be
preserved on upgrade. This is not commonly done, however, if the change
consists in deleting the file entirely. Existing practice is probably fine,
but the polic
19 matches
Mail list logo
