Re: Upgrading the priority of ucf

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com> writes:
> > It has recently come to my attention that nfs-utils (which is priority
> > standard) cannot depend on ucf, since ucf is of priority optional.
> >
> > I can only see four solutions for this:
> >
> >  a) Ignore the problem for etch, figure out what do to afterwards.
> >  b) Downgrade nfs-utils' priority (but I don't think this is a very good
> >     idea).
> >  c) Rip out the ucf dependency (possible, but far from ideal; using ucf
> >     instead of regular conffile handling allowed me to close a few bugs,
> >     at least one of them RC).
> >  d) Upgrade ucf to priority standard.
> >
> > I'd personally go with d); would anybody have objections to this? (Cc-ing
> > Manoj as the ucf maintainer, even though I'd believe he reads -devel.)
> >
> > /* Steinar */
> 
> e) Test for ucf presence and emulate its behaviour if not.

Don't.  That's code duplication for no acceptable reason whatsoever.  And
more food for hungry bugs, and hidden food at that, which is many times
worse.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh