Re: Proposed handling of generated configuration files (Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness)
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:22:31 -0400,
>>>>> Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> said:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:45:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hmm. ucf does show the user the changes, and even offers to merge
>> maintainer changes into the current configuration file.
>> What functionality do you think ucf is missing?
> In my first message, I listed bullet points for goals, most of
> which ucf meets, and then outlined the problems with this model,
> and linked to previous threads discussing them in detail.
From my reading of that message, about the only thing that is
missing is using debconf to ask the questions. Have I missed
anything? (I must confess I only skimmed the first few layers of the
message tree you pointed to as references; from my memory of those
discussions, there was little new, and the consensus seemed to have
been reached for post-inst prompting).
Using debconf is on the TODO list for ucf, and perhaps a
rewrite of the current prototype in C for speed later down the line.
Smear the road with a runner!!
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C