Re: Update Configuration File: preserves user changes to config files.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 20-06-2005 16:03, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 02:41:35PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>>The problem raised here is that debian-edu packages messes with slapd
>>conf(ig)files. That cannot (in the Debian we have today, Andreas!) be
>>solved by debian-edu using ucf: Debian-edu is not allowed to mess with
>>configfiles of other packages, except if those packages provide a tool
>>to do so (like debconf).
>>
>>Please read Debian Policy 10.7.3 and 10.7.4.
>
>
> I work on *changing* Debian and Debian policy to be better able
> to cope with todays demands and the future and be still
> attractive (and around) for my son or other people to use in ten
> years.
So do I. Welcome to the club!
But IMHO it makes sense to understand the current policy as part of that
work, in order to asure changes are improvements rather than degradation.
I believe it makes good sense to disallow one package messing directly
with config files of another package. The package maintainer knows best
what changes (like changing a file to a symlink) won't blow up
maintainance of the package.
I believe it makes good sense to disallow packages automating
configuration of other packages, until the issues around this is well
thought trough: Should config-packages predepend on packages they want
to mess with to make sure they are completely installed before messing,
or should config-interfaces (like debconf) instead be required to assure
that themselves? Should packages wanting conflicting configurations of
other packages (like "gnome-rules" and "kde-is-the-best", or
"exim4-rules" and "postfix-is-cool") conflict with each other or be
mandated to cause an election (as xdm, kdm and gdm does currently for
conflicting services)?
I believe each config file should be tied to a Debian package, and stray
config files should be registered as well (see
http://www.debian-administration.org/users/lee/weblog/1 ). Config files
not related to a specific daemon or application could be tied to
base-config or similar debconf-enabled *-config package.
I believe packages like debian-edu-config and debian-edu-install does
not belong in standard official Debian packages. Don't get me wrong: I
really really want the functionality in Debian, but the current
implementation is policy-violating for a reason: they do not behave as
expected of packages, so is a ticking bomb on each system they are
installed!
I believe it is very important that when fixing the issues of
distro-level needs we make sure to not overrule package-level
maintainance: Debian is a community-driven system with responsibility
tied to the packages. [I have more arguments here, but have written way
too much already - ask me if you need more on this...].
I am deeply sorry if my pointing to Debian Policy is seen as me wanting
to shut people up. On the contrary: I want more people more aware of
what Debian *is* (including myself - I am learning it myself as we
speak!) to better move forward instead of sideways.
- Jonas
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
- Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD4DBQFCtxgDn7DbMsAkQLgRAnp2AKCKBv6NZsCqJjd/buICcGNnRqXDxACVED9D
mNwB/iRQA6w6vzGftiUgbA==
=ASen
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: