Re: dh_config_model_upgrade: package upgrade with Config::Model
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 16:04 +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 16:45:53 +0100
> gregor herrmann <firstname.lastname@example.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?
You (or hopefully someone else who had the same config file syntax).
> Is the model package specific or system-wide?
> Why bother in the first place?
Because a diff is rather useless for people who don't know what a config
> Just what is the problem that this is trying to solve?
That people, when faced with the standard question by dpkg of conffile
updates, will adopt the "hmm.... just click enter?" attitude "so common
in the Windows world".
> Is it the
> packages themselves or some "model" of what the system should be
> configured to resemble?
The model is a description of the syntax of a configuration file. That
way, config::model can read both on-disk and new conffile, abstract out
any irrelevant changes (like whitespace), and then decide how to do the
> If it's the packages, why not just get the packages to explain
> themselves more clearly in their debconf questions?
It is the standard conffile upgrade question that is being avoided.
> 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
> 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?
dh_ is used at build time. It sets up .config and postinst, like other