On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:24:48 +0100
Dominique Dumont <dominique.dumont@hp.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 December 2009 17:40:55 Neil Williams wrote:
> > No. The package should simply exit cleanly with a successful return
> > value if perl does not exist, letting everything else proceed as
> > before. The postinst itself needs to check - that way, Emdebian
> > doesn't have to patch every package using dh_config_model.
>
> Ok. Here's the new postinst snippet injected by
> dh_config_model_upgrade:
>
> # In case of error (error in configuration file or model bug), the
> # configuration file is left as is.
>
> # testing perl is required to avoid problem in embedded environments
> if [[ -e /usr/bin/perl ]]
> then
> echo "config-edit is upgrading %PACKAGE% configuration with model
> %MODEL%."
> config-edit -model %MODEL% -ui none -save %OPTION% || \
> echo "WARNING: upgrade with config-edit failed: Run
> 'config-edit -model %MODEL% -force %OPTION%' and save the
> configuration." fi
>
> Does this fit the bill ?
With the later removal of the bashism, yes. Thanks.
> > An alternative is to make dh_config_model* into a no-op if a build
> > environment variable is set. DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="noconfigmodel" or
> > something. With this set, it has to be entirely equivalent to
> > dh_config_model not appearing in debian/rules at all.
>
> On Thursday 17 December 2009 14:24:48 Dominique Dumont wrote:
> > Unless somebeody complains, I will add this at the beginning of
> > dh_config_model_upgrade:
> >
> > if ($ENV{DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS} =~ /noconfigmodel/) {
> > warn "dh_config_model_upgrade: DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS specifies
> > 'noconfigmodel', exiting ...\n";
> > exit;
> > }
> >
>
> After reading (again) debhelper(7), I think it's better to exit
> silently if DH_NO_ACT is set.
DH_NO_ACT still needs debian/rules to be modified or else all debhelper
routines would be disabled; we need an option that is specific to
dh_config_model without having to edit debian/rules.
I think DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS is still useful, whether or not
dh_config_model outputs the warning is neither here nor there for my
purposes.
> > It would be so much better if this whole implementation was in C -
> > as long as nothing in the config model tried to execute the
> > cross-built executable on the build system. Then the ability to
> > disable it via a build option would be truly orthogonal to the
> > actual issue of whether perl exists.
>
> Well, a C implementation of the core part of Config::Model is
> possible, but it would take a while to create. I don't have the
> bandwidth for this.
The debconf maintainers aren't the cdebconf maintainers; it's not
unusual for someone else to step up as long as the interface in the
perl version is suitable for porting to C. So the real issue is that
config::model tries hard to make an interface that can be implemented
in another language.
--
Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
Attachment:
pgp5Ce3zjmF2Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature