Re: customized configuration issue
>>>>> On Sat, 15 May 2004 16:24:26 +0200, "C. Gatzemeier" <c.gatzemeier@tu-bs.de> said:
Gatzemeier> Am Friday 14 May 2004 19:48 schrieb Andreas Tille:
>> If you use debconf "the right way" you parse the config file
>> first and adjust the debconf database according to changes in
>> the config files. So config files have the main priority.
>> That means in other words, if you would run cfengine and change
>> some parameters which are controled by debconf the next run of
>> dpkg-reconfigure <package> should bring up the values which
>> were set by cfengine as "current". If not file a bug report
>> against the package in question ...
Gatzemeier> Hmm, you mean that it should idealy be like that, or
Gatzemeier> am I misunderstanding you? Because in that case the
Gatzemeier> config files themselfes should probably be
Gatzemeier> "pre-seeded", well lets just call it configured,
Gatzemeier> instead of the debconf registry, err config.dat. Or
Gatzemeier> not?
This sounds somewhat weird to me. Leaving aside for a moment the
question of whether debconf is a good way for handling configuration
values or not, IMHO cfengine should be invoked *inside* the postinst
scripts and used *together* with debconf.
This way if you preseed the debconf database with custom values and
run dpkg-reconfigure, then the postinst script will invoke cfengine
and transparently modify the conffiles according to the values that
you injected in the database.
Using it externally to directly modify a conffile that debconf would
later parse, changing the stored values accordingly does not make too
much sense to me.. what am I missing?
>> > kind of tools conflict and break other tools and manual
>> modifications, or > they have to refuse working. "File has been
>> modified!" (Who dared to?) > "Do you want to overwrite it, or
>> discard changes/updates?"
>>
>> Exactly - but were is the problem here?
Gatzemeier> Somehow I managed to get this type of messegas several
Gatzemeier> times during upgrades. If the config system stops
Gatzemeier> working I'd sadly consider it not very helpful/usable
Gatzemeier> and think a simple config file change should not
Gatzemeier> confuse it. I wished the system had flexible syntax
Gatzemeier> and semantic knowlege instead of more or less
Gatzemeier> hardcoded search/substitute procedures. Thus
Gatzemeier> Config4GNU which sports modular meta-config
Gatzemeier> definitions etc.
Config4GNU looks really The Right Thing, but I just don't whether the
project is alive or not, and whether it has chances to reach the goals
it states. Does somebody have fresh information about it?
bye,
free
Reply to: