[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debconf or not debconf

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:25:26 +0200
Thomas Viehmann <tv@beamnet.de> wrote:

> Jim Penny wrote:
> > 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.
> What is difficult to test in ssl connections fail? I routinely test
> mine with telnet-ssl or python scripts (though I remember something
> about python and IMAP SSL not too long ago)...

Well, you have to have a place to launch the scripts from.  It the
tunnel is at the edge, and listening only to the outward-facing
interface, or it is listening only to localhost, and you don't want
to have the testing tools on your firewall, or ...

> Also, the silentness would IMHO be better fixed by adding a big fat
> NOT to the init script (although anything more than a NOT will be
> controversial as well...). Reminds me of something I should fix for my
> packages...

This is a completely different complaint, more of an aside that should
never have been raised here. It has nothing to do with the change in
format of configuration information, debconf-ing or not debconf-ing. It
has to do with the experience of making repeated changes to the
configuration file, while feeling under some time pressure, 
running/etc/init.d/stunnel restart, 
seeing no output, and thinking "silence is golden".  You know, the usual
Unix tradition.

Jim Penny

Reply to: