Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 04:35:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > If debconf isn't good enough that everyone's not using it voluntarily
>> > (lilo has been converted *from* debconf), then the obvious thing to do
>> > is to improve debconf, not try to force everyone to make their
packages
>> > worse.
>> Which of these cases is true?
>> 1. debconf misses functionality needed
>> 2. bugs in debconf
>Consider, eg, #90676.
>> It's some work for a maintainer to convert a package that simply uses
>> things like "cat <<EOM" for interaction with the user to debconf -
and if
>> the maintainer is for any reason not willing to convert his package (he
>> might even refuse a patch) the only way to force him to make this change
>> is when policy says he has to do it.
I just wanted to point out that the current situation is not good for
people trying to promote debian in large scale organization by trying to
automate install (we have around 250 PC):
On one hand, debconf, dpkg have provision for non interactive mode
leading to complex code for handling user inputs for acommodating the
complex requirements. On the other hand, while most packages have
converted to debconf postinst, having package in base install not using
debconf postinst mode destroy the work done by everery one.
If dpkg, apt-get were allowing to enter inputs from a script, I would
not have complained. Here we are in totally absurd situation where tools
to handle the problem exist but are not used. Furthermore, the fact that
the tools exist forbid to use the old Unix tricks for suplying inputs.
>That is *completely* the wrong attitude. We're all volunteers; we're not
>here to be forced to do anything.
Yes but freedom stops exactly where freedom starts for the other. What
consideration do people rejecting debconf have for those who have
converted their cod?
If I open a bug to dpkg, apt-get saying I want to be able to install in
non-interactive mode, I'm told "Not A Bug. Use debconf non-interactive
mode. If I do it and find packages that breaks the non-interactive mode,
and open a bug against debconf, it is closed saying that the bug is in
the package causing the problem. If I open a bug for the package, I'm
told "never as long as I'm the maintainer of the package"
Remember me crimeOsoft support sometimes... So I think this is either a
policy problem, or that debconf non-interactive mode is meaning less or
unusable.
Not I do not want to force anyone to use debconf, I'm just asling to
have a way to force non-interactive mode for packages not using debconf
either by adding a flag to dpkg, dpkg-reconfigure, apt-get to avoid
opening a new tty.
A least, gieven the discussion I think the issue I rized is not my only
concern.
And by the way, I love this distrib of course and therefore all the
voluntary maintainers :-)
Have a nice week-end,
--
__
/ ` Eric Valette - Canon CRF
/-- __ o _. Product Dev. Group Software Team Leader
(___, / (_(_(__ Rue de la touche lambert
35517 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex
FRANCE
Tel: +33 (0)2 99 87 68 91 Fax: +33 (0)2 99 84 11 30
E-mail: valette@crf.canon.fr http://www.crf.canon.fr
Reply to: