Re: push for policy change (config manipulator/modularisation)
|--==> C Gatzemeier writes:
CG> Openly pushing some configuration manager is of course not better than doing
CG> so implicitly by pushing policy for config manipulation functionality.
CG> In the proposed policy change the maintainer scipts asked for are the beasts.
CG> Each complying maintainer will have to provide and maintain their own beast.
CG> Instead of policy pushing I'd see the job of CDDs to work on solutions
CG> together with other maintainers.
CG> Look at debconf, it is there. Some improvements to debconf or a helper library
CG> could greatly ease maintainer script writing/maintainig.
CG> Using the helper library should be easier than doing all by hand in the
CG> maintainer scripts.
CG> With such a library a policy change would be obsolete. A policy change without
CG> such a library would still require the library or be quite suboptimal.
Probably both paths should be followed.
I think that a policy change would greatly help in making maintainers
aware of the issue, and encourage them in either changing their
packages or accept patches from other developers.
On the other hand, we should try along with the policy change propose
and offer some facilities (debhelper scripts, debconf tricks,
configuration manager or whatever) to easy the task of be compliant to
the policy.
Anyway I think that the multi-level approach is in most of the case
very effective and the wording of the policy change proposed by Bart
is a good start in my opinion.
Cheers,
Free
Reply to: