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

Re: [custom] Custom Debian Distros need the help from debian developers

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:28:26PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> AFAICT debconf is intended and presently advocated as a way to prompt
> for defaults if they are absolutely needed. Specifically, it is not
> intended as a way to store stuff.

It is not intended to be the authoritative source of configuration
information for the system.  It most definitely *is* intended as a way
to store stuff: it must be, in order for the config and postinst scripts
to reliably communicate with one another.

> How does your request correspond with the "debconf is not a registry"
> mantra? Basically you seem to be advocating what many people have called
> debconf abuse.

You seem to misunderstand rather badly.  No one here is saying that bugs
that cause modified configs to be overwritten should not be corrected,
only that the right way to address these bugs is by fixing the debconf
support -- not by removing it.

> One of the obvious things that got asked multiple but that none of the
> 'keep debconf promt'ers answered is: Why is it critical for you to have
> these defaults done with debconf as opposed to customizing config files?

Because there is no other general-purpose, policy-compliant way to
customize config files belonging to packages.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: