Re: debwrap & general discussion
On Jan 05, ressu@uusikaupunki.fi wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 11:38:23PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > It may be dangerous to release a package like debwrap, since it may
> > let some maintainers believe, they could just recomend use of
> > debwrap instead of fixing bugs in installation scripts. Dumb
> > questions are bugs too.
>
> i think that debwrap is an useful tool for companies/persons who want
> to automate the installation. to make commercial packages, or just
> make group installations. while debconf is not working as it should,
> this is a nice drop in to replace debconf.. also until debconf is able
I disagree with the phrasing "debconf is not working as it should", but
I think what you mean is that it doesn't yet provide what you need.
Similarly, I've got ~100 slink machines here that aren't likely to be
upgraded to potato before next year (or end of the summer soonest.)
Since slink packages don't have debconf support, I'm currently planning
on using debwrap to enable automatic package configuration at our site.
I think that the argument that debwrap may be "dangerous" is silly;
there are doubtless many (most?) tools in Debian that can be abused, but
that's no argument for preventing them from being part of the
distribution.
So long as it's understood that debconf is the better long-term solution
to automated package management (for most people at least), I see no
reason to object to debwrap.
Reply to: