Re: Proposed handling of generated configuration files (Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness)
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 12:59:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:22:31 -0400,
> >>>>> Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> said:
> > 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.
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg01320.html
> 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).
Yes, debconf would seem to be the only item in that list that ucf does not
implement, now that the three-way option is documented in 0.12 (18 Apr).
> 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.
ucf still has the same fundamental problem with regard to preconfiguration,
which was the primary issue that I raised in my original message. The
consensus, as I recall, was that preconfiguration is important, and that
prompting in postinst should be minimized. If such a system is to be used
for a large number of packaging, this would mean moving a large number of
prompts into postinst, which I think is undesirable.