Re: Less interactive upgrades.
On Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 06:26:00PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Will Lowe writes ("Re: Less interactive upgrades."):
> > (moved from -devel, as it's probably more relevant to this list.)
> > > You don't really need to integrate anything with debconf to get
> > > the effect you want. What you need to do is to NOT set the file in
> > > question as a conffile and then handle its replacement inside of the
> > > debconf config.
> >
> > I think that one of the major strong points of Debian is dpkg, and its
> > stability. The idea of removing functionality from dpkg and putting it
> > into something else is a little disturbing, although I guess this is what
> > Debconf has already done.
>
> I disagree. I think that debconf is a good compliment to dpkg.
>
> The problem is simply that dpkg is not using it here. I think the
> right thing to do would be to have dpkg call debconf instead of asking
> the question itself, surely ?
It would be nice to have a common interface to all package related
questions. The only down fall is adding one more piece to an already
complex puzzle. It used to be that the only thing you had to concern
yourself with on installing packages was dpkg, and now you have apt and
debconf to add to it.
I'm not against the idea of moving to a common UI for dpkg. I just think
it's only fair to point out what the situation is moving to, especially
when dpkg will have to interact with and depend deeply on this other thing
working properly (dpkg has always been able to work by itself, this will
change that).
Ben
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bmc@visi.net '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: