Re: Proposal to improve package configuration upgrades
Jonas Smedegaard <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I assumed that Config::Model was similarly about declaring a model, not
> about guessing one. So I imagined that the suggestion to extend debconf
> to use Config::Model was *exactly* about explicit models: providing
> package maintainers an optional mechanism to express the model of their
> configfiles for more reliable merging than ucf currently offers.
Yes. Explicit models must be provided. See Config::Model::OpenSsh 
or Config::Model::Xorg for instance.
An article is to be published in french magazine GNU/LinuxMag to
explain how was created the model for OpenSsh.
All the best
"Delivering successful solutions requires giving people what they
need, not what they want." Kurt Bittner
domidumont at irc.freenode.net
ddumont at irc.debian.org