A plan to provide some patch to improve package configuration upgrades (was: Proposal to improve package configuration upgrades)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: A plan to provide some patch to improve package configuration upgrades (was: Proposal to improve package configuration upgrades)
- From: Dominique Dumont <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:31:11 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20090226153641.GA10523@usha.takhisis.invalid> (Stefano Zacchiroli's message of "Thu\, 26 Feb 2009 16\:36\:41 +0100")
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090225171552.22b4c148@sbs173> <20090225164927.GA5148@usha.takhisis.invalid> <email@example.com> <20090226081423.GB12501@usha.takhisis.invalid> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090226153641.GA10523@usha.takhisis.invalid>
Stefano Zacchiroli <email@example.com> writes:
> ... now it is only the two of us which needs to stop talking and start
> proposing patches as needed :-)
ok. Here's the plan:
- Identify a "candidate" package to add (as a patch) an upgrade
feature based on Config::Model.
- Then, I'll patch this source package to use Config::Model during
upgrade and test it at home
- Then, I'll send the patch for review and comments
Now, I need some help to identify the package I'll will work on.
This package should have a configuration not too complex and its
configuration definition should not move too fast. So this excludes
exim, sendmail and xorg.
So, do you have a configuration peeve package that fit the criteria
above and bothered you during upgrades ?
Does anyone want to participate actively to improve upgrade with
Config::Model ? (yes, this is a call for help :-) )
All the best
"Delivering successful solutions requires giving people what they
need, not what they want." Kurt Bittner
domidumont at irc.freenode.net
ddumont at irc.debian.org