Bug#311188: Possible compromise...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 31-05-2005 08:08, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
> Alex Owen wrote:
>
>>Could we not come to a working compromise for sarge no the basis that a
>>propper solution is found for etch... something along the lines of this.
>>
>>debian-edu-config could use debconf to ask the admin somthing like:
>> "Do you wish to apply the debian-edu configuation?
>> Doing so will alter the configuration of several independent packages
>> installed on your system"
>
>
> Installing Debian-edu-config will not lead to a lot of configuration
> beeing modified. If so, there is a bug.
Agree. The problem is not with giving a big enough warning. The problem
is that the basic logic of Debian is that each single package has
authority for automated handling of its conffiles - no other package is
allowed to overrule that.
Child abuse is illegal in most societies, even if you ask first!
So I don't see a good solution for sarge (to mark this as sarge-ignore
is a bad solution IMHO).
The good solution I believe is to define more "distribution choices" (as
implemented in base-config) into Debian, and convince relevant packages
to extend relevant "package choices" with a "use distro default".
Until package maintainers adopt such approach, CDDs cannot _within_
Debian provide different defaults, but must do so by adding/replacing
packages _outside_ of Debian.
> Running base-config, will lead to some modification (maybe most, I dont
> remember). running cfengine-debian-edu will also lead to a lot of files
> beeing changed.
I believe then "a lot of files" is what gets modified also when running
base-config: base-config seems to hook into debian-edu simply by
executing cfengine-debian-edu.
>>This could be preseeded by debian-edu fokes (right?) but give sutable
>>warning to others!
>
>
> I think Jonas also cares about upgrading, and upgrading an old
> installation and then running base-config could lead to unforeen results.
Correct. Thanks for clarifying, Finn-Arne.
>>This is going to be a common problem for all CDD's (custom debian
>>distroes). Perhaps each cdd is allowed one package like this... each of
>>the spercial packages would have to conflict with eacho other (or
>>something) so only one can be installed.
Actually, this may not be that common among CDDs: recent discussion on
debian-custom reveiled to me that those CDDs using cddtk has a saner
approach (behaviour changes is tied to a metapackage and disappears
again when the package is removed), alot different from the Skolelinux
approach (behaviour changes is tied to the distro and applied at install
time) which breaks policy.
A Debian package has stricter rules than the local admin. This is needed
in order for the local admin to be able to trust the system to not "take
over" or do other surprises. and it is needed for packages not to "be at
war" with each other: No package is allowed to overrule another package!
> Until every package is preconfigurable, I think this is something we
> need, yes.
Debconf preseeding in itself is allowed only by local admins, not
(official Debian) distros. That's the point of this bugreport.
But they are a step in the right direction. :-)
- 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
iD8DBQFCnau5n7DbMsAkQLgRAv3MAJ0aXpG0mP3+YB+cOylaYHX2+2FM/wCfQfYv
32XjYao2mAZr1YZS2FKHH2k=
=+Smz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: