Hi, btw, thank you all (tech-ctte) for helping in resolving this! Much appreciated. On Freitag, 18. Juni 2010, Steve Langasek wrote: > Personally, I don't think runit-run's behavior here is what's intended to > be allowed under Policy. IMHO, if the question is "do you want to install > this package that you selected for installation?" the sensible default > answer is always "yes", and if the maintainer isn't comfortable using this > as a default answer because of concerns that their package will break the > user's system, then that points to much larger bugs in the package's > integration into Debian than just this one Policy issue. I don't think a > package whose successful installation results in the system being rendered > unbootable unless further action is taken is up to Debian's quality > standards, and don't think such a package should be included in a Debian > release until someone puts together policy-compliant infrastructure to let > the init script migration happen at package install time. Full ack on that. > and anyway, piuparts ought to be extended to support preseeding for this > class of package. Absolutly. And btw, next on my personal todo list is to add support for package specific environments for piuparts, so that the sudo package doesn't fail the piuparts test. This needs package specific environment variables (and should be rather straightforward to add) - after that adding support for debconf preseeding should be next. The biggest problem with that is just time. (If you are interested in working on this, ping me.) cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.