Bug#61308: PROPOSAL] Initializing databases by using conffiles.

[Nicolás Lichtmaier <nick@debian.org>]

> The following proposal tries to address cases like Bug #34294.
> 
> \begin{proposal}
> Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
> \end{proposal}
> 
> Rationale: We should try to reduce prompting to a minimum during upgrades.
> 99,999% users will always say "No" to dpkg prompt. In this case it is 
> better not to prompt and assume that "No" is what almost everybody
> wants.
> 
> I'm looking for seconds for this proposal.

 What's the meaning of "text database"? Does this add more meaning than the
current policy text:

[...]
   The easy way to achieve this behavior is to make the configuration
   file a conffile. This is appropriate if it is possible to distribute a
   default version that will work for most installations, although some
   system administrators may choose to modify it.
[...]

 It's not very strong, perhaps this paragraph could have something along the
lines... (this paragraph is not intended to be put as it is into policy!!)
=) :

  Files thar are intended to be modified in most installations should be not
tagged as conffiles. If a configuration file support an include mechanism,
it's encouraged that a proably invariant part, and a probably
always-modified part, be separated.

(For instance this is what I've done in file, splitting the files in two and
modifying the program to read both locations by default... and, in a related
issue, the lynx configuration file could be split into a huge file, and a
small one with the configuration items the package asks at postinst time.)