Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:11:39 +0200 From: Gary Jennejohn <gary.jennejohn@freenet.de> To: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> Cc: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Trivial PR, fix package-noinstall Message-ID: <20100410131139.19dfd7a4@ernst.jennejohn.org> In-Reply-To: <t2p7d6fde3d1004100318k8b0b622fpaa38c5d942d8d60a@mail.gmail.com> References: <4BC04503.4000808@bsdforen.de> <t2p7d6fde3d1004100318k8b0b622fpaa38c5d942d8d60a@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 03:18:42 -0700 Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> wrote: > FWIW, I've thought this over and and user modifiable scripts should > not be in packages; they should instead be example files which don't > conflict with real configuration files. This is already the case for > several ports, but not all ports. If we did this, it would solve the > problem we've had with ports removing or overwriting user config files > simply and easily. I wonder if other folks agree with me or not. > I agree as long as the port emits a message pointing the user at the example configuration files. In some cases more than this may be needed since man pages might refer to configuration files which no longer exist. -- Gary Jennejohn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100410131139.19dfd7a4>