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

Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:02:18 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > It's already there:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=514316
> > 
> > I would happily include such a file, though it probably needs some thought
> > on the API before we commit to support it for eternity. Feel free to help
> > and make a proposal/patch.
> Joey Hess already sent a proposal for a dpkg-conffile last year[0],
> [0] <http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2008/01/msg00143.html>
> based on the wiki shell snippets. The problem I see with that is that
> it's not properly integrated with the dpkg internals. And I'd expect
> the interface to change once it is actually a proper C binary. The
> current copy-and-paste solution and the scripts even if suboptimal and
> cumbersome, work, but are a hack, a fine one though.

I agree with that but I don't see how it also applies to a shell library.
Once you have a proper C binary, the shell library can simply be modified
to wrap around the C binary.

We just have to make sure that the input parameters of the shell functions
contain everything we might need in the future. And also that the set of
places where we require people to call those functions allow us to
implement most ideas/request concerning conffile handling that we already

And even if conffile renaming is integrated into dpkg itself so that
nothing is needed in maintainer scripts, it's easy to change those
functions back to be no-ops emitting some warnings (if we can't transition

> Introducing either a shell library or a non-integrated dpkg-conffile
> has a too high cost IMO. It will prompt maintainers to switch to it
> (when the annoying part is the initial introduction of the support,
> being there already on packages currently needing it), which they might
> then need to do again once we get a proper solution, and will mean
> having to carry a deprecated interface for a long time, or not be able
> to change the existing one. I'd rather work during this release cycle
> on improving the general conffile support.

I don't think introducing a shell library would forbid you to improve
the general conffile support.

That said, we can certainly wait a bit more, until Squeeze plans wrt conffile
handling have been elaborated.

Raphaël Hertzog

Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny :

Reply to: