Re: debconf note
Can someone else confirm that a transitional package "pdns" as I
described is a correct solution?
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:18:56PM +0100, Matthijs Mohlmann wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 14:09 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 07:49:01PM +0100, Matthijs Mohlmann wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've read in the policy that you shouldn't add random notes. But i'm not
> > > sure of this one:
> > >
> > > I have pdns and added some debconf questions and i have also moved the
> > > recursor to a seperated package. The original package was pdns. Shall i
> > > inform the users that the recursor now is in a seperate package?
> > I would think so, if I understand the situation correctly. You should
> > avoid the situation where a package upgrade breaks a DNS system
> > because of functionality removed from the main package.
> It does not break the main DNS system. It removes the recursor which
> powerdns can use to search for other domains it is not authoratitive
> > I think debconf will mail root if an interface isn't available
> > (imagine an upgrade script:
> > for A in $HOSTS; do ssh $A aptitude update;
> > ssh $A aptitude upgrade;
> > done;
> > ).
> > In that case, the only email will be sent to root, who might not be
> > the DNS admin and so it might take a while for the note to be
> > redirected to the right person. So, debconf maybe can't handle that
> > appropriately?
> > Maybe you should have an upgrade package: pdns would become an empty
> > package which depends on pdns-recursor and pdns-server.
> I think that's the best way to go.
> > You might also add the change to the package description.
> > Justin
> Thanks for input.
aptitude install task-iraf saods9 eclipse sextractor x11iraf wcstools