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

Re: Bug#238193: use debconf to manage permissions of ls-r not high-priority question

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 10:28:56AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> :-! Use debconf to manage permissions of ls-R files? 

> >> That's completely unacceptable to present as a high priority question
> >> to a new user.  IT has an obvious default (yes) and tetex-bin is a
> >> dependency of enough stuff that it should not ask questions during a
> >> normal install.

> > As usual, this question only exists because it masks a more insidious
> > bug: there would be no reason to ask at all if the debconf support were
> > actually policy-compliant in the handling of users' local configuration.

> I am aware that we are not very good at this (but improving). But in
> this particular case, could you please elaborate a little? Not only would we
> have to safely figure out the "user's local configuration" - in this
> case whether he manually set the permissions of the ls-R files. The
> problem is also that upstream changed ls-R handling a couple of times. 

> On a fresh install (if the files simply don't exist) we needn't ask
> anything, that's right. But if we do find something, I currently see no
> easy way.

Sorry, I guess I didn't read the debconf question closely enough -- I
mistook it for one of the other questions that have existed in the past.
If this is really just asking about managing the *permissions*, I can't
see that asking the question is an RC bug.  I do agree it probably
doesn't need to be a high priority question.

> > This should, by all rights, be a "serious" bug, but I don't know whether
> > it's realistic to consider this RC for sarge now that it's been ignored
> > for so long.

> The problem is that in fact we don't know whether sarge will be released
> within weeks or months. Currently we are dividing our efforts between
> the current packages with rather outdated tetex-2.0.2 and tetex-3.0
> which will be released within the next weeks (in this case really 2-6
> weeks, I'm sure).

If by "weeks" you mean "less than a month", I think it's safe to say
that at the current rate of progress, sarge will not be releasable in
that time period.  I'd love to be proven wrong by an *improvement* in
the current rate of progress.

But I definitely don't think it will take "many months", as you suggest
in another message.  I definitely think we should be able to get this
release out before July.  Our chances of achieving this are better if
maintainers restrain themselves from uploading major changes to major
packages over the next month or so.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: