Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:46:20 +0100, Marc Haber
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 11:38:39AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:17:27 +0100, Marc Haber
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> There is no need to fork ucf to create a command that provides
>> functionality not in ucf.
> the intersection between zmct (zugschlus' magical conffiles tool)
> and ucf would be non-negligible and a lot of routine stuff would
> need to be present in both packages.
err, why would there be anything non-negligible beyond a
single grep call in common? I fail to see why there will be mounds
and mounds of common stuff -- as the tetex example already
>> And, arguably, this functionality should be in a different script
>> anyway, perhaps one that can read the simple ucf cache, which,
>> given the installed base, is unlikely to change from under you.
> Where is the documentation of the stable interface to ucf's cache
> that is reliable not to change between ucf releases?
My goodness. Are we so lost in ISO 9000 processes that we need
formal documentation to realize that ucf hash files have a md5sum and
a file path? And to realize that the hashfile exists on user
machines, and changing formats will be a major effort now?
>> > Additionally, I'd like a functionality of this importance in a
>> > better coder's hand than mine.
>> Write the code. You might surprise yourself. Or find that other
>> people can help out. Or you could contribute the code to be
>> included in ucf. But the first step is "do the work."
> insufficient time resources.
Then it is good for you tat the tetex folks hve written the
(simple) wrapper code for you -- and the complex common part was:
md5sum=$(grep "$file$" /var/lib/ucf/hashfile | cut -f 1 -d ' ')
Darth Vader sleeps with a Teddywookie.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C