Re: mass bug filing of 'ucf: command not found' errors detected by piuparts
On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 11:18:08PM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:52:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 08:10:11PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > > > Interesting timing. initscripts started depending on ucf just a
> > > > > few
> > > > > days ago, which makes ucf quasi-essential.
> > > Well, I would argue that packages in the essential set shouldn't be
> > > adding
> > > new dependencies without some discussion and review on debian-devel
> > > first.
> > Hopefully we can remove the ucf dependency; please see #648433.
> > Currently /etc/default/rcS is intentionally only installed once
> sysvinit is currently at 9/10 days and about to migrate to testing.
> If these two controversial changes (initscripts adding dependency on ucf
> (which becomes transitively-essential), updating rcS on upgrade) should
> not find their way into testing (in the current form), action should be
> taken now.
I won't have time to do anything about it personally until the
weekend. Not that this is IMO a massively urgent problem--we
can remove the use of ucf any time. What I would like to know
in order to fix the problem properly, is which variables in
/etc/default/rcS can't ever be in a conffile, and which ones
can. Because right now it's a mixture, and I'd like to
separate them. If it's just UTC that's the problem, I think
splitting it into e.g. /etc/default/hwclock would be the
appropriate solution, then /etc/default/rcS could become a
regular conffile and ucf can be dropped
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.