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

Re: stop abusing debconf already



On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 08:17:16PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
> > Or maybe realize that Joey might perhaps know what he's talking about
> > with regard to debconf ... you could go find the text of his talk at the
> > last Debian Conference if you like.

> I realise he has an opinion on how things should be done. Depending on your
> own viewpoint this may be more influential than others as he is the author
> of the tool. As far as I'm concerned I'll use debconf how I please and if
> that's against the 'pure' view of others (ie/ *never* call it a registry)
> then its just hard luck.

Um, no.  *Policy* says that it may not be used as a registry.

- Debconf answers are stored in /var/cache/debconf.  Under the FHS,
  which is a mandatory part of Policy, the rules for /var/cache are that
  "[the] application must be able to regenerate or restore the data", and
  "the cached files can be deleted without data loss." *This precludes
  using debconf as a registry, and is by design*.  Since the position of
  the debconf maintainer is that debconf should not be used as a
  registry, if you use it as a registry then *your* package, not
  debconf, is in violation of Policy.
- Policy section 11.7.3 requires that "local changes [to configuration
  files] must be preserved during a package upgrade".  Using debconf as
  a registry implies giving precedence to debconf over the contents of
  an edited configuration file.  THIS IS A VIOLATION OF POLICY.
  Therefore, even if you resolve the above issue, Policy only allows you
  to use debconf as a registry *for information that is never written to
  a config file*.

I'm not sure why you think Joey's expertise doesn't qualify him to make
pronouncements about the use of debconf.  Unlike you, he at least gets
the answer right.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpPT3W1pHo0j.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: