Bug#214916: Debconf question for configuring modules is hard to answer
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 01:32:36PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
>
> > > - Module names have no description
> > They have a descrition but it is not shown. The main issue is that the
> > descriptions are very long and they do not fit in few chars.
>
> Then we've probably got a usability problem, which can only be solved by
> debconf implementing a multiple selection box for items with a long
> description attached.
>
> Should I send a wishlist bug to them?
>
Let me see if i can work something out first my side. afaik debconf
support horizontal scrolling.. never had the time to play with it.
>
> > In case of install the defaults are set for the minimum to be able to run
> > apache with the default config. On upgrade i of course import the user
> > settings,
>
> I assume you import them from debconf if upgrading from a package
> >= 1.3.2-1 and from httpd.conf if upgrading from a previous one.
No i always import them from the user configs. The user in this way is
perfectly free to do manual changes and then still be able to run debconf
without breaking anything,
> > > Not knowing it, I'll probably hit "OK" and then get mad at checking
> > > them all when something breaks :)
> > Yell at the modules that do not provide a correct .info file ;)
>
> Sorry, I didn't get it: how could a .info file help in that debconf box?
The .info files are stored /usr/lib/apache/1.3 and they are specific files
used by apache/apache-modules. The contain a bunch of entries that were
used in the past to automagically select the modules to load. That system
is now obsoleted (because it was more broken than this one).
> > > My suggested correction would be to include a description for every
> > > module,
> > probably this would be a "wontfix" but all this things in one bug make it
> > impossible at the moment. Let's take one step at a time.
>
> I can report it as a separate bug if you want
Just wait.. if we agree on the other things this can be retitled.
> > > to initialize the selections using what is in the existing
> > > configuration files and to explicitly say so,
> > There is no need to for this, It is obvious (to me) that we do not want to
> > break users configs. (other than it happened for my mistake).
> > > so that the admin knows
> > > that he can safely just press "OK" if (s)he already has a working
> > > configuration.
> > They can do it now already.
>
> Perfect! But existing practice with xserver-xfree86 or samba, for
> example, shows that debconf scripts are able to completely replace the
> old configuration file from scratch and with new values, and they often
> do.
this is simply not possible for apache. modules-config is meant only to
handle modules that should be loaded together with apache.
> For this reason I think it's a good idea to explicitly document in the
> dialog box that when that debconf dialog is run for the first time on an
> existing apache configuration, the defaults have been imported from the
> existing httpd.conf (or whatever) file.
OK i will see about it for -3/-4 i need to get -2 in to fix all the other
breakage first
>
> It makes you just press "OK" happily and without worries, while
> realizing how awesome your debian maintainers really are. ;)
Oh if you wanna be cool like me just join the apache maintainer team ;)
Fabio
--
Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol
"We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues
http://www.itojun.org/paper/itojun-nanog-200210-ipv6isp/mgp00004.html
Reply to: