Re: Proposal to improve package configuration upgrades

[Dominique Dumont <dominique.dumont@hp.com>]

Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:

> I assumed that Config::Model was similarly about declaring a model, not 
> about guessing one. So I imagined that the suggestion to extend debconf 
> to use Config::Model was *exactly* about explicit models: providing 
> package maintainers an optional mechanism to express the model of their 
> configfiles for more reliable merging than ucf currently offers.

Yes. Explicit models must be provided. See Config::Model::OpenSsh [1]
or Config::Model::Xorg[2] for instance.

An article is to be published in french magazine GNU/LinuxMag to
explain how was created the model for OpenSsh.

All the best

[1] http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/DDUMONT/Config-Model-OpenSsh-1.203/lib/Config/Model/models/
[2] http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/DDUMONT/Config-Model-Xorg-0.513/lib/Config/Model/models/

-- 
Dominique Dumont 
"Delivering successful solutions requires giving people what they
need, not what they want." Kurt Bittner

irc:
  domidumont at irc.freenode.net
  ddumont at irc.debian.org