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

Re: Removing self-managed conffiles?

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:52:53 +0100, Marc Haber
<mh+debian-mentors@zugschlus.de> said:  

> I haven't thought about this in the necessary depth. To a newbie DD
> who has only been with Debian for six years it looks like ucf is not
> completely finished.

        ucf scratches the itch I had to begin with, and it does
 everything my packages need it to do.  Feature creep is to be guarded

> I suspect that there is some wrapper code needed anyway which is the
> actual hard part (taking care of special cases). Additionally,
> imagine this code being scattered away to 100 packages and then some
> obscure bug surfacing.

        I suspect that generalizing the specific code might make it
 harder. For example, the previous md5sum specification is
 unnecesarily complex in a generic tool; and much easier in the
 maintainer scripts where each maintainer can choose the best method
 that works for them

> Currently, ucf does a lot less than dpkg does.

        Well, duh.

> What ucf does, it does much better than dpkg.

        Why, thank you.

> But since there are still things that dpkg handles quite well while
> ucf basically says "well, code it yourself", ucf does not provider
> conffile like handling as it is advertising in its package
> description.

        Matter of opinion. ucf's man page says: preserve user changes
 in configuration files. ucf is a prompting tool -- and is designed to
 handle user interaction, and copy files in place if the user says so.

        That's all it does.

> ucf. Actually, the challenge is there _BECAUSE_ ucf was not designed
> to address this issue (which it actually should) and its maintainer
> considers this missing feature a feature.

        Why should ucf provide a means for removing old configuration
 files as well? It is not code that is in common with the current
 functionality.  Hell, you don't even need ucf. You look to see if the
 current files md5sum matches any known md5sums, and you knwo if it is
 an unmodified file.

> I still feel that the right place to do this is the tool that claims
> to be able to replace dpkg conffile (sic!) handling, ucf.

        Why should ucf be involved at all?  This is not what ucf does.

This is NOT a repeat.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: