Quoting Andreas Glaeser (2016-10-28 08:24:47) > I am a beginner with debian-packaging and to tell you the truth, > bringing my packages into > > official debian-repositories does not have priority, but I felt it > would be the correct > > way to do it, using a metapackage. > > We are in fact planning to make binary images using preseeding and > metapackages in > > KVM-machines. > > It is not only one package either, but a 32- and a 64- bit version. > > For me the question remains, how to integrate configuration-changes, > for Privoxy for > > instance, what is the simplest most common way for that, use debconf > or cfengine or just > > package the conf-file into the metapackage, would this violate > debian-policies? Use debconf whenever possible: That is best because a debconf interface is a promise to support said configuration. If packages provide support for adding config.d snippets then that is reliable too (but less so than debconf: Another package might add a config snippet contradicting yours. A few packages (e.g. asterisk and shorewall) support providing custom configuration as a separate package. You then just have to make sure your config-package provides and conflicts against any default config package. lacking above options, you quite likely violate policy by overriding default config of other packages - see e.g. bug#311188. For unofficial packaging of configuration files, you might find the Debathena approach interesting: http://debathena.mit.edu/ - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature