On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 13:05 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tuesday 06 March 2007 12:37:34 Steve Dickson wrote: > > Question: what right do we have to destroy our users initscripts > > when they changed? There has been an expectation for a number of > > years, in a number of packages that if an initscript that has > > changed it will be preserved on updates.. So why should we change that? > > For the simple fact that init scripts should _not_ be configuration files, > _at_ _all_, and the packaging system should not encourage people to treat > them as such. Configuration must happen in real config files so that it can > be preserved while things in the init script like binary name and necessary > options can change when the application changes. I personally feel that the > init script needs to live somewhere outside of /etc to make this even more > clear, but that's a much larger change that I can't necessarily drive right > now. If your customers have to do configuration in the init script, that is > a bug in your software that needs to be fixed. If they have to work around > some bug that we haven't fixed yet, they really should copy the init script > to a new name and disable the old script, or exclude that package from being > updated. We're really trying to clean up the system and consolidate > configuration into concise areas rather than scattered about the file system. > These are the changes that Fedora can make moving forward. If RHEL doesn't > want to play along, that's their choice. > > The Packaging Committee, the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee, and your > own peers within Red Hat have approved this guideline, and it will be moved > in hopefully today. Yes, they all failed - It's a serious mistake. Ralf -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
