Re: the files in /etc/modprobe.d/
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:02:18 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Mar 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:02:11PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > <winge>
> > > Insert the typical winge here about dpkg conffile renaming code
> > > being deployed via cut-n-paste from a wiki page instead of any
> > > of our better technologies, such as a utility, with a man page,
> > > in a single package.
> > > </winge>
> >
> > It would of course have to be in an Essential: yes package, since conffile
> > renaming has to be handled in the package preinst and we wouldn't want
> > conffile handling to involve lots of extra Pre-Depends. dpkg itself is the
> > most likely package to carry this - wishlist bug on dpkg warranted?
>
> It's already there:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=514316
>
> I would happily include such a file, though it probably needs some thought
> on the API before we commit to support it for eternity. Feel free to help
> and make a proposal/patch.
Joey Hess already sent a proposal for a dpkg-conffile last year[0],
based on the wiki shell snippets. The problem I see with that is that
it's not properly integrated with the dpkg internals. And I'd expect
the interface to change once it is actually a proper C binary. The
current copy-and-paste solution and the scripts even if suboptimal and
cumbersome, work, but are a hack, a fine one though.
Introducing either a shell library or a non-integrated dpkg-conffile
has a too high cost IMO. It will prompt maintainers to switch to it
(when the annoying part is the initial introduction of the support,
being there already on packages currently needing it), which they might
then need to do again once we get a proper solution, and will mean
having to carry a deprecated interface for a long time, or not be able
to change the existing one. I'd rather work during this release cycle
on improving the general conffile support.
regards,
guillem
[0] <http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2008/01/msg00143.html>
Reply to: