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

Re: dh_config_model_upgrade: package upgrade with Config::Model



On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 16:45:53 +0100
gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:18:46 +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> 
> > > For more informations, see
> > > http://wiki.debian.org/PackageConfigUpgrade
> > Which describes the technical minutiae of the codebase without
> > explaining the "big picture" benefits of using the model or how the
> > model proposes to "fix" the (IMHO non-existent) problem that it has
> > invented.
> 
> The problem and the aim are stated in the Introduction section of
> this page.

So it claims but that still doesn't make sense. Merely repeating the
statement without supporting the assertion doesn't help.

Where is the Model?

Who designs the Model?

Is the model package specific or system-wide?

Why bother in the first place?

Just what is the problem that this is trying to solve? Is it the
packages themselves or some "model" of what the system should be
configured to resemble?

If it's the packages, why not just get the packages to explain
themselves more clearly in their debconf questions?

How is the model to be translated? How are the strings used by the
model to be translated? Who is in control of when those strings are
changed?

Why would a model be any clearer than the package-specific messages?
(Unless it stays out of the way entirely and is just an overgrown
system of defaults.)

How is a model meant to make sense to a user when the detail does not?

Why add yet another layer?

'Model' seems to be a completely misleading use of terminology. Why was
it chosen?

debhelper is a build time package, why use it dh_ styles for an
installation based system?

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/

Attachment: pgpkOMc9ob09z.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: