Re: Debconf or not debconf
Julien LEMOINE <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 July 2003 22:51, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Julien LEMOINE <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> I received a bug report on stunnel package from an user  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 ?
>> Is this just the usual default file for modifying the init-script's
>> behaviour, i.e. will the package just continue to work as it did if
>> the user does not know about it?
> Not exactly, there is a variable ENABLED which is set to 0 at
> installation. So the service will not start while variable is not
> set to 1.
I see. I cannot do much more than AOL!! other posters in this thread:
| 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...
*If* this is not possible, because it would require you to maintain a big
patch differing from upstream and you can't change their minds with
<[🔎] 20030703030419.GM4426@alcor.net> *then* a debconf note with priority
high is needed.
Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette!
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_