Two jed entries in /etc (was Re: patching upstream -- why not?)
g.milde at web.de
Mon Sep 5 09:00:46 UTC 2005
On 4.09.05, Jörg Sommer wrote:
> > > > On 23.08.05, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > > > > Please move
> > > > >
> > > > > /etc/jed.conf
> > > > > /etc/jed-init.d/
> > > > >
> > > > > Under common directory => /etc/<package> like
> > > Why do you think we should not patch upstream files? It's common
> > > practice.
> > Patches always mean additional work for the packagers and can introduce
> > consistency problems, so IMHO they should only be a last resort.
> This is not a good reason for me. We only need a patch if the upstream
> version do not meet our requirements (aka Debian policy).
> And having a systemwide configuration file that takes care about other
> packages is truely not of interest of upstream.
> The reson for the bug report is that jed has two entries in /etc.
I know. However, is this violating Debian policy or just a minor
annoyance for some users?
In any case, I would not like to introduce /etc/jed/, but
* if the status quo does not violate Debian policy, I would leave
* Otherwise, I would
+ use JED_ROOT/lib/defaults.sl for setting up /etc/jed-init.d/
+ move the Debian specific configuration to a NNdebian.sl file under
/etc/jed-init.d/ (NN > 0, to give users a chance to have something
+ remove /etc/jed.conf
+ update README.Debian and changelog.Debian to warn users that
/etc/jed.conf is no longer read in and configuration should be done
(Alternatively, defaults.sl could contain code to check for a
user-provided /etc/jed.conf so the upstream documentation is
> > Still, I think contacting the upstream author should always have
> > priority.
> I do not agree. If there are problems with the arrangement of the files
> in the /Debian package/, I see no reason why we should waste the time
> of upstream. It's not a bug nor a feature.
You are right, in this special case we should not bother John.
More information about the Pkg-jed-devel