Re: Debconf or not debconf : Conclusion
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:24PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [...]
> This upstream change makes no sense from a usability standpoint; this new
> stunnel package would be pretty useless to me, and I wouldn't want to have it
> automatically installed on my systems if I were using the previous, working
> version. By the time a debconf note is sent, it's too late.
the new version of stunnel is much better than the old one.
i got bitten by the upgrade to 4.0-4 (when the init.d script didn't start
stunnel unless ENABLED=1 in /etc/default/stunnel).
big deal. i noticed it quickly enough and it took me less than a minute to
scan the docs and discover that i should edit /etc/default/stunnel. the worst
that happened was that my uucp-over-tcp clients weren't able to connect for a
while.
IMO, anyone who does an upgrade without bothering to check that important
services are still running correctly afterwards is just plain sloppy and
deserves whatever their negligence causes.
the same applies to anyone who doesn't test upgrades of critical services on
another, unimportant machine first...and for really important packages, it's a
good idea to make sure you have a backup copy of the old version of the package
before upgrading (dpkg-repack is useful here if it has been cleaned out of your
local /var/cache/apt/archives)....if the new version proves to be broken,
revert to the old version.
debian packages aren't a substitute for a competent and careful system admin,
they're just a tool to make the sysadmin's job easier.
craig
Reply to: