On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 10:13:34PM +0200, Andreas Fuchs wrote: > I see your point. Maybe I did get over-enthusiastic. I have not even > been able to imagine a scenario where this could be necessary yet. I'd > say, forget it (-: agreed, lets look at this way: if a user comes across a need for a fancy function they probably ought to just rewrite the init script from scratch anyway. (something i did to fix bind so its not a giant root shell listening on port 53) > > can't work. config files are supposed to be modified by the user and > then left alone by dpkg and everything else or to be modified by > dpkg and then left alone by the user and everything else. good point, though i have seen some packages do this i assume they are violating policy.. > Well, either make it a configfile or make it debconfable or use some > proprietary (sic) means of updating the files. > > In this scheme, conffiles are the worst possible solution: say the > user installs the new version of an init.d script which does: how is /etc/network/interfaces handled? it is NOT a conffile but user configuration must be preserved.. > rm -rf /$NEWVAR well any init script doing something like that is evil anyway... > And does not install the new (modified) version of the init.d > config-file (which is also a conffile, which is also a very different > matter). > > The proprietary way is also quite .. ugly, as it means that you will > have to reinvent the wheel. > > debconf might be the the best solution -- a perl routine to source > these config-files will be very easy to write -- just put every > variable (and its value, to be presented as a default) in the > config-file and every new variable into a hash and then prompt the > user for everything that is there, new and old values alike -- the old > ones just have already-present default values. > > Output should be easier -- But What To Do About Comments? Oh well. (-: debconf would seem to be the best solution, but things like comments really should be preserved. if this config file cannot be handled perfectly its not worth doing IMO. (meaning i would rather deal with upgrading a single modified script (the initscript) then an initscript and a initconf) > That was not dope, that was me having only just crept out of > bed. Anyway, what be da difference, man? (-; i dunno, i think redhat's mess had to be induced by something more potent then lack of sleep. ;-) -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpobjXMj_nd9.pgp
Description: PGP signature