make install overwrites existing configuration files

[paulusmack]

make install will currently overwrite files in <sysconfdir>/ppp with "sample" copies from etc.ppp (i.e., options, chap-secrets, pap-secrets, etc.). This seems like a bad idea to me. Is there some way we can tell autoconf/automake to generate Makefile code that will check for existing files and not overwrite them?

@enaess ?

[enaess]

sampledir = $(sysconfdir)/$(PACKAGE)
sample_DATA = \
    etc.ppp/options \
    etc.ppp/chap-secrets \
    etc.ppp/pap-secrets \
    etc.ppp/eaptls-server \
    etc.ppp/eaptls-client \
    etc.ppp/openssl.cnf

I agree, that is indeed a bad idea. Typically, one would install examples like /etc/ppp/options.example and it would be the packager's responsibility to setting up the /etc/ppp/options file according to the distribution's need. Most importantly, when we do run the make install command, it shouldn't overwrite existing configuration files (could overwrite the examples).

[paulusmack]

I agree, that is indeed a bad idea. Typically, one would install examples like /etc/ppp/options.example and it would be the packager's responsibility to setting up the /etc/ppp/options file according to the distribution's need. Most importantly, when we do run the make install command, it shouldn't overwrite existing configuration files (could overwrite the examples).

So the question is, how do you get autoconf/automake to generate a Makefile rule to do that (i.e. not overwrite an existing file)? I had a look in the documentation for both autoconf and automake and couldn't see anything relevant.

Is the best we can do simply putting ".example" on the end of the names of all the files in etc.ppp?

[enaess]

Glancing over the documentation, I think the way to do this would be to rename the files in git to add the .example suffix, and then install that.

Package maintainers may ignore these files and remove them from the distribution at their own preference, and provide a default config based on the sample.

Some of these sample files may even be installed under /use/share/ppp/docs or something similar instead of /etc/ppp

Since they already are installed under /etc/ppp, maybe leave them there. It's mostly for us developers to set the right config and muck with it..

@rfc1036 @yarda any opinion from you?

[enaess]

Glancing over the documentation, I think the way to do this would be to rename the files in git to add the .example suffix, and then install that.

Package maintainers may ignore these files and remove them from the distribution at their own preference, and provide a default config based on the sample.

Some of these sample files may even be installed under /use/share/ppp/docs or something similar instead of /etc/ppp

Since they already are installed under /etc/ppp, maybe leave them there. It's mostly for us developers to set the right config and muck with it..

@rfc1036 @yarda @floppym any opinion from you?

[rfc1036]

Are people actually installing ppp using make install on real systems? Anyway, it does not matter for Debian.

[floppym]

Yeah, as a distro packager this really doesn't matter at all. The package manager will automatically prevent the config files from being overwritten without notifying the user.

[enaess]

@paulusmack so basically, make install is really a developer centric option anyways. Most people are going to use a .deb or .rpm to install the software so I think we are free to do whatever you think is necessary.