[pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#370332: Bug#370332: dear maintainer, please comment...

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

On Saturday 05 April 2008 21:18, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think the approach being proposed is wrong.  It would upset existing
> users and make life more complicated for "normal" uses, to accomodate what
> is essentially a packaging and policy problem.  There could be any number
> of custom Debian distributions that want to customize various configuration
> files.  The end result of that would be that the dpkg conffile mechanism
> must go away entirely.  Maybe that is the way to go, I wouldn't be opposed
> to that.  But we need to consider this a bit more generally before we craft
> an individual workaround in every package.

I think you're overestimating the amount of changes CDDs need to do. Currently 
we have nine blocking bugs for #311188 left, not 20000 :-)

I still think you might have a point though :-) But I'd prefer to have this 
discussion after Lenny and for now concentrate on getting those few relevant 
packages fixed now. And I'm not sure you have point as well: as a user, I 
very much like packages which I can customize without loosing the default 
configuration too much.

> That said, I would welcome a proposal and patch for switching to ucf. 
> AFAICT, this would give end users essentially the same behavior while
> allowing other packages to write around in the configuration files.  I have
> never implemented it, however.

I guess we will have to look into this then ;-)


regards,
	Holger
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ntp-maintainers/attachments/20080407/ffbb70c8/attachment.pgp