[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

[ forgot to CC my last message here to -devel ]

On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 21:28, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> From: Colin Walters <walters@debian.org>
> Subject: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
> Date: 17 Apr 2003 20:32:41 -0400
> > reopen 189370
> > thanks
> sigh.

I won't reopen it again.  But its open/closed state doesn't change the
fact that it is a bug, and it's not fixed.

> > Only if you can *perfectly* preserve changes.
> There is nothing perfect in this world, I think ;)

Debian has a long, hard-earned reputation for doing things "right".  We
shouldn't toss that out the window in a mass of "manage /etc/foo.conf?"
with debconf prompts.

> > You just overwrote a configuration file with something else.  I could
> > have easily modified that file.
> > 
> > In fact I just tested this.  I have "tetex-bin/use_debconf" set to true,
> > and then I did: echo '%test' >> /etc/texmf/language.dat, then I did
> > apt-get install --reinstall tetex-bin.  The postinst happily destroyed
> > my local changes.
> This is natural because you choose to destory your setting 
> with setting tetex/bin/use_debconf to true.
> Note the priority is high in this case.

You don't understand Debconf.  It is a cache, not a registry.  I should
be able to rm -rf /var/cache/debconf/config.dat *at any time*.  If I do
that, since your question defaults to "yes", any local changes I've made
will be destroyed.  

> Even if the default setting "true" might have slight possibilty 
> to cause problem, "default" answer should be for majority users
> and I think "true" is correct setting in real system.

It is not, for the reason above.

> If this breaks Policy really I suspect Policy should be changed
> in a more realistic way.

It does break policy.  There is no question.  And I think policy is
correct.  If you don't think it is, the right way to solve the problem
is to discuss the issue here on -devel.

Again, I am proposing a much more policy-compliant alternative that
still provides most features; i.e. the way I do things with fontconfig. 
I wrote a little bit about it in my first mail, but "apt-get source
fontconfig" for the details.

Reply to: