Re: Proposed handling of generated configuration files (Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness)
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:20:00AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman
> > As was explained in detail, in order to do anything useful with that
> > information, it is necessary to be able to show the user the proposed
> > changes to the configuration file. It is completely unhelpful to say:
> > "You have modified this configuration file, and it has also been updated
> > by the package maintainer. Do you want to replace it with the version
> > provided by the package maintainer?"
> > Without showing the user the new version.
> Of course, this question will be shown in the postinst, if the generated
> file differs from the previously generated one and the user has modified
> the one in /etc.
Yes, and this was the main question that I brought up at the end of my
original message: is it worth sacrificing preconfiguration, or is there a
better way? So far, there is no clear consensus.
> I see your problem when you insist on asking on asking all questions at
> the configure stage -- personally, I don't think delaying the actual
> generating of the configuration file (and asking the question about
> overwriting the old file) to the postinst stage is *that* bad.
This is the sort of input that I was soliciting. Personally, I think that
preconfiguration is very important, since it _greatly_ simplifies initial
installation and upgrades (where a large number of questions are asked) and
allows the rest of the installation to proceed unattended in the absence of