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

Re: Running cdebconf. Status and RFC



Hi guys,

Just to let you know, I've done some work on it, had some real life stuff
to deal with, and hit some technical issue, but I believe I just found
what was my last blocking problem, so I'm now expecting to push a working
version during the weekend.

Regis

On Thu, October 6, 2011 16:30, Regis Boudin wrote:
> Hi Joey,
>
> On Thu, October 6, 2011 16:07, Joey Hess wrote:
>> Regis Boudin wrote:
>>>  * debconf/frontend: debconf and cdebconf have different names for the
>>> frontends (Readline, Dialog, Gnome, versus text, newt, gtk), which
>>> causes
>>> all sorts of issues for the transition. Any objection to using
>>> cdebconf/frontend instead ?
>>
>> Not really, but the rest of d-i would need to be checked for uses of it.
>
> That part should be fine, I can keep the existing checks for both the old
> and new fields.
>
>>>  * When switching from debconf to cdebconf, there is the problem of the
>>> database. One uses /var/cache/debconf, the other /var/lib/cdebconf by
>>> default, meaning either it has to be migrated, or cdebconf will have to
>>> use /var/cache/debconf. The main issue of migrating the database is in
>>> the case of a system wide upgrade where cdebconf would actually replace
>>> debconf. Between the package being unpacked and the postinst script
>>> being
>>> run, the database will be unconfigured ; so any other package trying to
>>> use debconf in this interval won't have access to the previously set
>>> values. This includes triggers, e.g. in the man-db postinst.
>>> Do you have any opinion in the long term ? In the short term, I could
>>> include the migration script for people willing to test, but I would
>>> like
>>> someone else's view on it before I do it.
>>
>> I can see no way around debconf and cdebconf using the same database,
>> perhaps a preinst would need to move it and set up a symlink so debconf
>> still sees it?
>
> That could actually be a solution. I'll try something along these lines,
> and make a new release with only the (c)debconf/frontend change in the
> meantime.
>
> Thanks for the answer and suggstion.


Reply to: