Re: Protecting user changes in developer scripts handled files
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Unwilling to create a narrow solution to this issue, I have
> created a general purpose script that can be used to provide conffile
> like handling that dpkg provides for conffiles for files managed by
> by maintainer scripts.
What a good idea, having a general way to do this in cases where the
info can't really be sanely managed by a maintainer script w/o doing it
conffile-style is indeed going to be useful. I do have one concern
though.
It looks like in woody we've almost reached the point where you can set
your debconbf frontend to noninteractive, pass --force-confold to dpkg
and get fully noninteractive upgrades. Not that it's perfect or
anything, but it's already useful for upgrading nonessential things like
chroots, and it is proving useful in automated installs too. There are
of course still some packages that don't use debconf, but all
indications are that they will be *very* scarce by the time sarge is
released. But now adding this script which may not yet have any
provisions for this type of noninteractive upgrades, sort of feels like
it has the potential to be a step backwards in this area. People have
mentioned making it have debconf as the UI (or having the potential to
do that anyway), and that's the only way around it I see, unless there
could be some way for it to tie into dpkg's --force-conf* command-line
arguments, which I doubt.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: