Re: Intent to package bo-upgrade (autoup.sh)
On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > 2. When dpkg has finished processing the waiting background job
> > > does the upgrade of all necessary packages in the correct order.
> > this is precisely why it shouldn't be a package. it should be run
> > BEFORE the dselect stage of the hamm upgrade.
> Its designed to run before the dselect stage.
it still does not need to be a package. the package introduces potential
sources of disaster for no benefit. how much harder is to to run
"./autoup.sh" than it is to run "dpkg -i bo-upgrade_0.1.deb"? given the
amount of typing involved, your package is actually harder to install
than the existing script.
the package also gives a false sense of security. The script *IS*
potentially dangerous. that is highlighted to the user by the fact that it
is NOT packaged. Users are encouraged to read and understand the script
before they run it.
Packaging it will make it seem "safer" for the user, and also discourage
users from reading the script because it HIDES IT AWAY. This is just plain
wrong, and should not be.
> > this would also leave a useless package (autoup or bo-upgrade or
> > whatever you call it) in the status file. it's a use-once and throw
> > away utility - it shouldn't clutter up /var/lib/dpkg.
> It does not clutter the status file.
it's still unnecessary and dangerous.
> > of course, the script IS public domain so you can do whatever you
> > like with it. I'm against the idea of turning it into a package.
> IMHO: Another surfacing of the I-hate-things-being-simple problem of
> the many developers. The most obvious things are not done. We still
> have no preselectable sets of packages to be installed that would
> enable a bypassing of dselect for beginners.
you keep on repeating that same tired old line whenever someone says
something you disagree with. why do you persist in believing that all other
debian developers are against improving debian and making it easier and
simpler to use? that is obviously absurd.
the reason that it doesn't exist is because nobody has bothered to write
it. before you point the finger, ask yourself "why haven't *I* written
it if i think it is so important?"
code that works (even if only a primitive prototype) is a lot better
than a thousand "we should do this" posts.
> A catastrophe.
overly simple things LEAD to catastrophe. Putting a "this ice is safe"
sign near thin ice does NOT make the ice any safer....in fact, it makes
it far more dangerous because people are stupid enough to believe such
signs even when they can see the cracks in the ice right in front of
dangerous things, like this autoup script, should be highlighted as
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .