Re: let's etch a common way of using debtags for CDDs and beyond!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 23-05-2005 13:09, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 09:22:17AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>On 21-05-2005 14:35, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 03:34:12PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Imagine a Debian package "tweaks" with a big bunch of pre-seeding
>>>>answers and idempotent (read: cfengine) scripts - a little like
>>>>autoconf-archive but organized in OWL classes shared with debtags and FAI.
>>>
>>>
>>>Please imagine something else. The d-i has an explicit support for
>>>language-specific tweaks at install time.
>>
>>I believe I then failed to properly express my point:
>>
>>All autoconf-based code projects also has explicit support for the
>>snippets in autoconf-archive.
>>
>>What I imagine is a well-defined archive of snippets needed for various
>>larger system configuration projects - whether they use FAI, cddtk, d-i
>>directly, CVS maybe, or some homebrewn structures.
>>
>>FAI has such archive already, each snippet independent of the other, and
>>all snippets organized to be able to include only the relevant ones by
>>meta-expressions (FAI "classes").
>>
>>
>>What is new is that I want this well-organized archive of tweaks
>>_shared_ among several system configuration systems (not only FAI, but
>>also distro projects like CDD and d-i, and also homebrewn tweaking
>>setups). The keys to lift it out is IMHO to package it seperately
>>(suppressing recommends of the larger FAI package is discouraging) and
>>shift the organisation of the pile into one shared with package
>>selection projects (FAI classes <=> debtags facets).
>
>
> And you don't want to call those tweaks "packages" because?
> Packages can be home-made. They don't have to come from an official
> Debian archive.
When you hack a configuration file officially in a Debian package, it is
done in "maintainer scripts", typically "postinst", and sometimes tied
to a debconf-based question. Such maintainer script makes sense only as
part of that package, not as an independent package.
Tweaks are "maintainer scripts" for "CDD maintainers". As such they make
sense as part of the CDD, not as independent packages. If you want to
package your CDD logo in a package, your GRUB menu file in another, and
your distro PGP public key in a third, then feel free. I personally
think they make sense only as part of the distro packaging, not as
individual, self-contained .deb packages.
I don't know the details of the d-i approach. Do you want the tweaks
distributed as udebs, is that it?
> Can you provide an example of such a tweak that cannot be expressed as a
> debian package?
Here:
http://cvs.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/tweaks/oldtweaks/oldtweaks/gconf/desktop-profiles-support.cf?cvsroot=tweaks
It is part of a proposed fix for this recent bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/309871
- Jonas
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
- Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCklucn7DbMsAkQLgRAsuiAJ9DM8LQh+xsT7Yi+8n0W5jwhkCyRgCfZdfA
oUDpDEfsha+5LuVB96sABLY=
=LArt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: