On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 08:04 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Monday 19 February 2007 22:31, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > Apart of this, a system is not unlikely not to boot up anymore or at > > least not to work properly anymore when an update reverts a local bug > > fix/customization. > > Alternatively it may not boot or work properly if your old init script is kept > in place while a newer init script with different launch options is needed > for the new binary. In theory yes, in practice in most cases things are the other way round: An old script continues to work unless things been deliberately changed in incompatible ways. Or conversely: An old script is likely to degrade, if things are being changed deliberately. > This is why configuration must be split from launch > script. I don't see this - Separate config files only restrict the user to what a vendor wants him to restrict to and what the vendor has taken into consideration. It takes away the freedom of customization and takes away the freedom extending init-scripts to what the vendor has not considered. Why would this be useful? The user has chosen to customize, so it's the user's responsibility to handle this situation - If you take away %config you are simply erasing, killing his "carefully handcrafted solution" to a real world problem. - I can't find this helpful. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
