On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 09:08:03AM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> The last version of libconfig-model-perl (640-3) is now shipped with
> dh_config_model_upgrade.
Cool, thanks for the update.
> The end user may have to answer a medium debconf question asking him
> whether to upgrade foobar package with Config::Model. Hopefully,
> that's all the end user will see.
I wonder why the detail about how the conf file is being upgraded should
be relevant to the final user at all. As you observe on the wiki page,
most lusers barely know of the existence of /etc, why should they care
about Config::Model being used? Ideally, whether to use it or not is a
choice of the package maintainer.
Also, assuming that the available configuration on disk matches the old
model assumed by the package, why bother with a question at all? After
all dpkg upgrade "untouched" config files automatically, hopefully with
Config::Model we just introduce a more flexible definition for
"untouched"
> - ensure that a proper configuration model for the application
> contained in foobar exists.
Exists where? It is not clear to me whether in Config::Model you have
the distinction between meta-models (that live in the Perl lib somehow)
and models that live in the package.
On the same line, it is not clear to me whether the maintainer can
programmatically define updates other than "from model m_1 go to m_2".
Many thanks for your stubborn work on this! :-)
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature