On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:49 AM, David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au> wrote:
Tend to agree, except, the subtle push in the right direction eg better
matching the FHS, and patches that make it, and config relocations of the
config that could help lead upstream into a better config solution. Once
they see it working, hopefully they would be more likely to accept the
change ;-)
Since my last email to the list, I tracked down the upstream
discussion on this [1], and it looks like upstream is planning on
changing the names of these configuration files anyway. So if we
implement this now, we might end up with two %post hacks in the spec
file instead of one.
I agree with subtle push idea :-) But I wonder if that might be better
served with a trac ticket filed upstream?
- Ken