[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Lintian error about missing debconf dependency (which is not missing)

Russ Allbery wrote:
> I hate to say this, since actually implementing it is a lot of work in
> supporting programs like debhelper, but if the debconf-2.0 pseudopackage
> was introduced prior to a new feature in the debconf interface there needs
> to be a debconf-2.1 or debconf-3.0 as well.  If cdebconf implements that
> protocol, it can provide that pseudopackage as well.

Any later version 2.x of the debconf protocol is intended to be backwards
compatible with 2.0. In practice, new commands such as SETTITLE and the
PROGRESS stuff can be added to the protocol without increasing the
version number since earlier versions of debconf can skip doing anything
for these commands with no undue effects (although if you want this to
work, you'll need to || true your db_settitle commands in a shell
script). The CAPB interface also allows for larger change to the protocol
without increasing the version number.

I wouldn't object to a version 2.1 being added to the protocol, but
getting anything into the policy manual has become to much of a pain for
me to bother with myself.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: