El dom, 03-10-2004 a las 02:10 +0200, Sergio Talens-Oliag escribió: > El Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 08:32:12PM +0200, Miguel A. Arévalo va escriure: [...] > > I've been already thinking about that and found that the solution is > > already developed, we can use the alternatives system already present in > > Debian, so: > > I think that your idea of using the alternatives system is not bad and maybe > can be used for the branding of some applications, but, to be fair, it seems > an overkill for something that only implies a variable value change inside a > configuration file. There are basically one problem with configuration files: - A package cannot touch any configuration file of other package, at least if the fomer wants to be in Debian pool. Also, you will need to do that in postinst, as dpkg doesn't allow to overwrite a file. And you cannot overwrite user(admin) configurations without asking first > Anyway, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that every body is trying to avoid > handling configuration files and usually they are the best place to do this > kind of things... i.e. what happens if the branding has nothing to do with > files (like variables that indicate colors or names or whatever)? Then you have two options: - Make maintainer use debconf, and preseed debconf datatabase. This has the problem that right now there isn't any way to ensure that the preseeding will be done (unless at d-i installation time), as dpkg doesn't assure you that packages will be configure in order. - (Evil hack) Make the maintainer use alternatives also for the config file. Of course, any of these should need a wider agreement, so maintainers feels that this must to be done. Cheers, -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo jsogo@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente