New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implicitly set conf_files #21649
Comments
Yes scripts in |
Those files shouldn't be marked as conf |
Good idea. Skimmed through xlocate, nothing besides what Duncaen pointed seems to need to be excluded. |
basicly Debian for example does. |
I'll make a PR that addresses this issue and respects @Duncaen's comments. |
Should |
AppArmor profiles aren't conf files either. They are in @Duncaen what do you think about making
@travankor IMO yes, it's where we recommend users make changes that persist across package updates. I believe the How would this work for new applications that for some reason store files in To keep track, stuff I can think of in
|
Ping? |
Issues become stale 90 days after last activity and are closed 14 days after that. If this issue is still relevant bump it or assign it. |
Issues become stale 90 days after last activity and are closed 14 days after that. If this issue is still relevant bump it or assign it. |
Issues become stale 90 days after last activity and are closed 14 days after that. If this issue is still relevant bump it or assign it. |
Issues become stale 90 days after last activity and are closed 14 days after that. If this issue is still relevant bump it or assign it. |
Blocked on void-linux/xbps#342 |
What about marking any files in /etc automaticly as conf_files. are there any counter-examples where this would break anything?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: