Re: autoup.sh & considerations on bail-out scripts
On Thu, Feb 12, 1998 at 10:22:54AM +1059, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, David Welton wrote:
> yep. i was planning to rewrite that part of the script (contributed by
> Turbo Fredriksson) using lwp-request from libwww-perl. Other replies
> have suggested several other alternatives.
I like the idea of different functions.. I'm currently working on a
function for plain old ftp.
> it's pretty obvious though, that my time is limited at the moment (very
> busy at work), so i think it's time i turned over the script to the
> debian-testing list for further development. I like the ideas you've
> written about David so if you'd like to take over the job of co-ordinating
> development of autoup.sh, it's yours.
If there is absolutely no one else, I guess I would, but I don't feel
particularly qualified... This is a pretty important thing for
debian, and my shell scripting abilities are so-so..
> Like many people, I think that a package sets front-end for dselect is a
> priority for the hamm release. if i get any spare time soon (unlikely)
> I'll work on something for that.
It might be a good idea to make sure autoup.sh is solid..really solid
before moving on to the next thing...:-)
> libwww-perl is your friend. it makes ftp:// and http:// fetches very
> easy. it also comes with a program called lwp-request which can be used
> to do scripted downloads.
Sounds like another good candidate for a function.
> lynx is another good option. i used to use this in scripts until i
> discovered lwp-request.
Given that it is more common, maybe lynx is better.. better to have 3
or 4 rock solid options than anything with a bug.
> i'm glad people think it is so useful. i've used it many times now (and
> helped several people on #debian irc channel use it) and it basically
> works....a bit rough around the edges and not really suitable for
> novices but the guts of it work safely and reliably.
We really have no option other than to make it suitable for novices.
They are the ones who aren't installing hamm now...
> > On a second topic, for those of you still reading, I'm wondering if it
> > might not be a good idea to have some for of bail-out script ability
> > for upgrades. In other words, the ability to run a script before
> > upgrades. This is sort of a vague, of the top of my head idea, but it
> > seems that it would be a good way to make sure we can always upgrade
> > smoothly, and with the existing frontends. I guess it is sort of a
> > hack, and an admission that our tools are not infallible, but I think
> > that's already painfully obvious. This would give us a way to
> > brute-force any details.
>
> the script would probably not be necessary if dpkg (or any of the dpkg
> methods - ftp, mountable, etc) used manoj's pkg-order to sort packages
> into dependancy order. both ftp and mountable could be modified to do
> this. the default mounted method probably couldn't easily because it
> just does a simple recursive 'dpkg -iGROEB'
I guess... if it were necessary to do something autoup.sh does in the
future, we could just make that package happen before everything else?
Before anything else was even unpacked?
Thanks,
--
David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw
Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: