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:
pgp5GCsRtI2zk.pgp
Description: PGP signature