> Non-interactive upgrade is new to Debian. It sure is benificial for the > users, but it is new, and not yet working. > The separation of "local admin" and "packaging scripts" is old, and well > defined (oh, apart from surprises and disagreements about clarifications > done as part of the Sarge relelease policy). > The separation of "local admin", "packaging scripts" and "packaging > scripts that see themselves as implicitly initiated by the local admin > even if in fact it is done by the packaging scripts through debconf" is > new. Current Debian does *not* handle that separation and considers it a > violation of Debian Policy section 10.7.4. it would only be possible to use debconf values in violation of 10.7.4 if the package is in violation by using debconf values to improperly edit "conffiles", as 10.7.4 has nothing to do with debconf values. if the package properly uses debconf values (only on "configuration files" not marked as "conffiles", with provided tools to edit the "configuration files"), it would be compliant with 10.7.4, as i read it.. > I agree that for a future Debian we should seek more flexible > configfile handling, but for current Debian that is not an option > (because changing the world takes time so *is* future). some of us need to work with the current stable debian release to maintain sanity, and some imperfect workarounds are necessary until the issue can be resolved, no? i don't see the point of dragging this out without proposals about how to fix it, as the workarounds are at least a temporary necessity. live well, vagrant
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature