Trivial PR, fix package-noinstall

[Dominic Fandrey]

On 10/04/2010 13:11, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 03:18:42 -0700
> Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd at 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.

I think noone ever agreed that installing user changeable configuration
files was a good idea and .sample files or include folders are both
prominent and widely accepted solutions. However this only ever entered
the discussion because of a misunderstanding.

I'd prefer to keep the discussion on topic and avoid the million
"I agree" posts on something no one ever disagreed to.

Regards

-- 
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?