Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 04:55:00PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 04:17:00PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > 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.
> Hi Guillem, thanks for the improvement proposal, I guess we are all
> eager to beta test it :)
> Nevertheless, I don't get your argument against the essential package
> containing the shell snippet library. To me, it looks very much like
> debhelper. We are used to release of it with new features adding the
> proper versioned dependency to ensure we have the right debhelper.
If the facility is later implemented as a C executable (or whatever)
instead of a shell lib, the shell lib would still have to be shipped in dpkg
so that maintainer scripts don't fail ungracefully when trying to source it.
That makes it hard to ever get rid of that interface once deployed.
> In principle, that package can be dpkg itself (as it was suggested by
> Joey). Note how we regularly write down in release notes to first
> upgrade dpkg and then go ahead with the rest of the upgrade. That
> would trivially solve the usual pre-dependency potential issues.
No, the way to get dpkg upgraded first is by declaring the Pre-Dependency on
dpkg. Then, if there *is* a pre-dependency loop, it's detectable and should
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/