Re: Debconf or not debconf
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:40:02 -0500
Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 05:12:22PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
>
> > I received a bug report on stunnel package from an user [1] that
> > complained
> > about the fact that I didn't warning about the new
> > /etc/default/stunnel file introduced in package (thereis a note in
> > README.Debian and in changelog).
>
> > Since debconf is not really appreciated for this use, what is
> > the best
> > solution ? Inform users with debconf or give them informations only
> > in changelog and README.Debian ?
>
> Does the introduction of /etc/default/stunnel break a large percentage
> of installed systems? If so, I would recommend looking for a way to
> provide a more graceful upgrade -- this is worth much more than a note
> telling users that you've just broken their systems...
It breaks 100% of stunnel installations. The old stunnel was command
line oriented, the current one is configuration file oriented. It would
be very difficult to write a converter.
I am going to disagree with most responders here. I think that in the
case that if upgrading a package introduces substantial risk of
breakage, a debconf message is quite appropriate. When a security
related package has high risk of breakage, it is urgent.
Now, this breakage happens to be somewhat benign, in that without
configuration, it does not function at all. But it is also somewhat
difficult to test for many uses. Further, when the unconfigured
system fails to start, the failure is completely silent. This adds
to the problems.
Jim Penny
>
> --
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer
>
Reply to: