Bug#189370: marked as done (stop the "manage with debconf" madness)
Your message dated Sat, 31 May 2003 09:19:22 -0400
with message-id <E19M6GY-0008OK-00@auric.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#189370: fixed in tetex-bin 2.0.2-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 16 Apr 2003 23:10:03 +0000
>From walters@debian.org Wed Apr 16 18:10:03 2003
Return-path: <walters@debian.org>
Received: from (monk.verbum.org) [216.226.142.159] (postfix)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 195w2V-0003GB-00; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 18:10:03 -0500
Received: from columbia (dhcp024-208-189-249.columbus.rr.com [24.208.189.249])
(using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits))
(Client CN "columbia.verbum.org", Issuer "verbum.org CA" (verified OK))
by monk.verbum.org (Postfix (Debian/GNU)) with ESMTP
id 84E2C7400093; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 19:10:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by columbia (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 1014826F0C7; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 19:08:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: stop the "manage with debconf" madness
From: Colin Walters <walters@debian.org>
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-EVbosdMS/TrwiEqHdsf+"
Organization: The Debian Project
Message-Id: <1050534497.8818.30.camel@columbia>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.3.1 (Preview Release)
Date: 16 Apr 2003 19:08:17 -0400
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=4.0
tests=HAS_PACKAGE,NOSPAM_INC,PGP_SIGNATURE_2,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level:
--=-EVbosdMS/TrwiEqHdsf+
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Package: laptop-net
Severity: serious
I just installed "laptop-net", becuase it looked similar to something
I'd like to work on.
The first thing it asked me was whether I wanted to "manage" its
configuration file with Debconf, and it defaulted to "yes"!
This behavior needs to stop, now. It is a violation of Policy, section
11.7.3, which states that local changes must be preserved during a
package upgrade.
Debconf is NOT a license to overwrite user's configurations! =20
Yes, I am quite aware that XFree86 does this. We as a project have
accepted that XFree86 does it because parsing XF86Config perfectly and
preserving changes is very difficult. But that doesn't mean that every
package can do it. And hopefully the X maintainer is working on a
solution for XFree86.
First of all, these questions CANNOT default to yes. If my debconf
priority is higher than the question, then I won't even see it, and I
won't know that I've just given the package a license to destroy my
local changes.
I propose a different solution to this problem, which conforms much more
with policy, while still allowing debconf to be used as much as
possible.
In my fontconfig packages, /etc/fonts/local.conf is a configuration file
(not a conffile). When the in fontconfig.config, I check to see whether
that file exists. If it does, then I don't ask any questions at all.=20
That way we never overwrite their config file.
Now, I also have special support for "dpkg-reconfigure". Inside
fontconfig.conf, I check to see if $1 is "reconfigure". If it is, and
/etc/fonts/local.conf exists, then I warn the user that continuing will
overwrite all their changes. The default is no. =20
Now, it might be nice to have generic support in debconf for handling
configuration file overwriting. So I could say like:
db_overwrite_warning /etc/fonts/local.conf
And debconf would handle the prompt, so we wouldn't have to have to
handle it individually in each package. Or maybe we could have a
separate file like debian/fontconfig.debconf_config_files.
But that's just making things a bit nicer. In the meantime, I will be
filing serious bugs against packages which have "manage with debconf"
prompts (except XFree86), ESPECIALLY the ones which default to yes.
--=-EVbosdMS/TrwiEqHdsf+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQA+neJhOIkJWWp2WGURAia/AJ9KRNztPgdp23apuI6D722HzqfRvACfdLH3
IM6NF6dBR86HHPZRxrOVhX4=
=mTpl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-EVbosdMS/TrwiEqHdsf+--
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 189370-close) by bugs.debian.org; 31 May 2003 13:23:11 +0000
>From katie@auric.debian.org Sat May 31 08:23:11 2003
Return-path: <katie@auric.debian.org>
Received: from auric.debian.org [206.246.226.45]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19M6KF-0007dZ-00; Sat, 31 May 2003 08:23:11 -0500
Received: from katie by auric.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19M6GY-0008OK-00; Sat, 31 May 2003 09:19:22 -0400
From: Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org>
To: 189370-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.34 $
Subject: Bug#189370: fixed in tetex-bin 2.0.2-4
Message-Id: <E19M6GY-0008OK-00@auric.debian.org>
Sender: Archive Administrator <katie@auric.debian.org>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 09:19:22 -0400
Delivered-To: 189370-close@bugs.debian.org
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
tetex-bin, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
libkpathsea-dev_2.0.2-4_i386.deb
to pool/main/t/tetex-bin/libkpathsea-dev_2.0.2-4_i386.deb
libkpathsea3_2.0.2-4_i386.deb
to pool/main/t/tetex-bin/libkpathsea3_2.0.2-4_i386.deb
tetex-bin_2.0.2-4.diff.gz
to pool/main/t/tetex-bin/tetex-bin_2.0.2-4.diff.gz
tetex-bin_2.0.2-4.dsc
to pool/main/t/tetex-bin/tetex-bin_2.0.2-4.dsc
tetex-bin_2.0.2-4_i386.deb
to pool/main/t/tetex-bin/tetex-bin_2.0.2-4_i386.deb
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to 189370@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org> (supplier of updated tetex-bin package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 20:28:15 +0900
Source: tetex-bin
Binary: libkpathsea3 tetex-bin libkpathsea-dev
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.0.2-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org>
Description:
libkpathsea-dev - kpathsea.a and include files for teTeX
libkpathsea3 - shared libkpathsea for teTeX
tetex-bin - teTeX binary files
Closes: 189370 191942
Changes:
tetex-bin (2.0.2-4) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Fixed update-* scripts, postinst etc. so that they could preserve user
midifications. [kohda] (Closes: #189370)
* Fixed rules so that flex didn't cause trouble. [kohda] (Closes: #191942)
* Installed es.po contributed by Carlos Valdivia Yagüe
<valyag@dat.etsit.upm.es> and many thanks to his contribution. [kohda]
Files:
ff1ae47aa933a9415f6488deb8c2f325 974 tex optional tetex-bin_2.0.2-4.dsc
da75a891885d3cb497927135f4bcc574 57144 tex optional tetex-bin_2.0.2-4.diff.gz
08bf67605953b4cc79806592d716740a 3774334 tex optional tetex-bin_2.0.2-4_i386.deb
baabfb7f70e858c72801232eb1eda0b5 48778 libs optional libkpathsea3_2.0.2-4_i386.deb
fdfe5b17e6a0d743728271a3e79bcf97 64214 libdevel optional libkpathsea-dev_2.0.2-4_i386.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+2KGw1IXdL1v6kOwRAkm9AJ9zBfsYo6z1+xfiSE2sXG+YfVk+lQCeOU7b
Fc7ytR4oyswktcHqG+kT6XE=
=spsg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: