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

Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness

On Fri Apr 18, 12:54pm -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On 18 Apr 2003 11:55:09 -0400,
> >> Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org> said: 
>  > So, opinions?  Yeah, it's kind of gross.  But the way things are
>  > now is far worse.
>       As long as /etc/conffiles/managed, /etc/conffiles/unmanaged,
>  and /etc/conffiles/default are never themselves unmanaged, this would
>  work. And the factory default for /etc/conffiles/default should be
>  managed; and the other two files should be empty. 
>       If we standardize on a easy to interpret format for these
>  files, I'll add the logic to ucf to handle these directives. (how
>  about a configuration file path per line for /etc/conffiles/managed
>  and /etc/conffiles/unmanaged, and /etc/conffiles/default contain a
>  single word, which is "managed" by default; anything other than
>  "unmanaged" is interpreted as "managed?).

Something else worth thinking about, which I was gonna throw in my
example package for all this stuff, is config-file-change priority.

ie: It would be nice to differentiate between "the entire config format
has changed, I will break completely if the old one is used", "some
parameter options have changed; the old ones will still work - for now",
"I just changed some defaults, keep what they have now", and "I fixed a
typo in one of the documentation comments."

We could then respect things like DEBCONF_PRIORITY, and not bother the
user if all we've changed is the spelling of a descriptive (ie: not
example) word in a comment.

Pet peeve of mine in dpkg conffile handling :)

Attachment: pgpOTWcwykkgi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: