[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Summary of the workshop on CDDs held in Valencia

On Fri, 14 May 2004, Free Ekanayaka wrote:

> Yeah, but it's missing you taking that icy bath.
Icy?  What do you mean?
If you mean "refreshing" like having some ice cream - yes. ;-)

> we should ask maddog for that ;)
You do not have to ask Maddog because he copied them to my USB stick when
we were sitting together at the airport ...


I just cutted the borders a little bit ...

>     Andreas> I guess Jon would like to pronounced as Jon "maddog" Hall
>     Andreas> ... ;-) But this is not so important as perhaps RMS want
>     Andreas> you to pronounce the GNU in front of Linux. :)
> Ooops. I thought it was kind of polite/respect not inserting the nick,
> but I understand Jon may think the opposite :/
At least it was my feeling that Jon wants to be called "Maddog".

>     Andreas> Time to upload the first meta packages. ;-)
> Well, I'm eager  to do that. But awfully  I'm not  a Debian maintainer
> yet :/
Ask for sponsoring.  If all else fails I'll go for it.

> Moreover I'm   a little  bit worried  by  the  fact  that  the current
> strategy  adopted by the  task packges (i.e. depending   on a bunch of
> other packages) is  seen  as a possible   source of problems  by  some
> people (see the recent post from Joey Hess on debian-edu).
Perhaps we should wait if DebConf brings some news.  The problems are known
but no better solution currently.

> Well  I think your explanation of  the issue is  quite clear.  I'm not
> sure of what is  the next move now, whether  to try to raise the issue
> on debian-devel or to  keep  on collecting ideas  till we  have better
> picture of the scene.
See what will happen at DebConf.

> I'm Ccing this  mail to Martin madkiss to   see if there are any  news
> from the Debian Desktop team on this issue.
Good idea.

> Andreas thanks a lot for this neat summary. I think it really gets the
> point. I would just add  that cfengine (or ucf  or whatever) could  be
> used not  only to write  an external configuration script for packages
> which  do not  accept a certain  patch, but  even  as a  complement to
> debconf.
May be that's reasonable but there is no difference regarding to our
decision where to place these files.  I guess the placement should be
defined for better reference.  The actual usage is done by the maintainer
of the package in the postinst / whatever script and I currently see no
point in defining certain things how this should be done.

> In this view debconf would be used as  frontend to ask questions and a
> database to store/retrive answers, while cfengine would be used by the
> postinst  scripts  as a sort   of library to  modify the configuration
> files according to the deconf values.
> I don't know  whether this approach is correct  or not,  but currently
> even the simple use of debconf as  a database for configuration values
> is not widely accepted.
I would leave it to every maintainers decision what tool to use to access
debconf database.  I see no conflict in using cfengine and if a maintainer
of a set of CDD packages decides to use cfengine it seems reasonable to
do some unification here.  If an other maintainer to go a different way -
hey it is free and the user will not notice it if the system is configured
as expected afterwards.

> For example see:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/02/msg00801.html [I've already posted this..]
> and
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg01531.html
> Maybe we should include these links in the document.
Hmmm, if you think so.  I see no real new information here.  Perhaps you
might provide a complete paragraph which explains more detailed in how far
these links clarify the problem.

> That's great. It's really important to keep  this document up to date,
> so that our discussions do not over when a workshop is  over or when a
> thread is dead.
Well, if I'm a lousy programmer I can at least do something to keep people
informed what's going on. ;-)

Kind regards


Reply to: