On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 06:54:56PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> The idea was to offer the user a possibility to bail out since
> config-model is still experimental. But I'm beginning to wonder if
> this is a good idea...
IMO it is not, in the sense that it is quite pointless to put this
choice on the final users. The choice about whether to use it or not
should be of the final *package maintainer*. If its use of config-model
works, fine, otherwise _his_ package will be considered RC buggy as any
other package erroneously fiddling with user conffile.
> Hmm, good point.
> I've added these explanation in libconfig-model-perl README.debian:
>
> - ensure that a proper configuration model for the application
> contained in foobar exists. Either:
> - find the package containing the relevant model in Debian
> (something like libconfig-model-foobar-perl)
> - find the package in CPAN and ask debian-perl team to package it
> - write the model. In this case, you may want to subscribe to
> config-model users list (see below)
Please detail more the "write the model" case. I want that possibility,
but it is not clear to me whether the custom model can be shipped within
the package needing it at configuration time. (Yes, that of course
means that no-fiddling would be possible in preinst, but I got the
impression that it was already the case.)
> > 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".
>
> Most of the time, there won't be limitations on the number of model version
> you can jump. There will be limitations if the model evolves rapidly (i.e. the
> configuration semantics also evolve rapidly). This kind of fast evolution is
> generally avoided except for new projects.
No, that's was not my question, sorry if it was not clear; let me try
again. config-model will have a model for the previous maintainer
version of some conffile, let's call it m_1; then config-model can have
several other models m_2, ... m_n and it can jump up to m_n.
What I want to know is whether config-model allows me not to write a
model m_i I'd like to arrive to in the package, but rather write a small
program snippet which takes m_1 and modify it in some way. That's
basically the different between "here is the model you should arrive to"
(which I understand is supported) and "here is a recipe/program to
obtain the model you should arrive to". Oh, well, I should probably
just study Config::Model!
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