Re: less hard coded config files
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 21-06-2005 02:05, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>>>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..
>>
>>Then read again. First two paragraphs of 10.7.4 relates to conffiles
>>only, but the rest is generally about configuration files.
>
>
> read my above paragraph again... i wasn't saying that debian-edu-*
> packages weren't, in some way breaking policy, i was saying that your
> suggested (and snipped) third approach did not account for the above
> highlighted policy-compliant approach to use debconf values.
The policy violation in bug#311188 is two-fold: The package messes with
conffiles, and it messes with conffiles (and other configfiles) that
does not belong to the package itself.
Debian Policy 10.7.3 is about the use of conffiles or not. 10.7.4 is
about config files (conffile or not) not part of your own package.
It is policy-compliant to use debconf with configfiles of your own
package if you make sure not to mark those configfiles as "conffiles"
(because then debconf automation and dpkg automation collide).
It is *not* policy-compliant to mess with configfiles of *other*
packages, wether or not those configfiles are conffiles or not.
Please correct me again again, if you believe I still don't get you
right (as I don't you)...
>>>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.
>>
>>I am not sure what is your point here.
>
>
> you seem to be saying "this is broken, we need it fixed."
>
> and others seem to say "yes, we know, but we have other priorities right
> now."
Maybe I'm just blind, but I never realized the "yes, we know, but" part.
> without *providing* and alternative, re-stating the issue will not solve
> it.
If we all agree to what is the problem, you are right: there is no need
to re-state it.
Here's the shortest-term alternative: Do *not* consider packages adopted
by Debian until they are policy-compliant.
Again, maybe I'm just blind, and noone considers debian-edu-config truly
adopted by Debian...
[snip]
> i await your fine code to do all this :P
Thanks, I appreciate that (as I choose to see it as you at least
acknowledge the need for it).
- 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
iD8DBQFCt9yOn7DbMsAkQLgRAlbxAJ9pUtzKIekjh/HC1+YPzmQUf5RISwCdHfg1
JJNxyJgHE+OMFvmHdppoE8w=
=Kdc4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: