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

Bug#408529: marked as done (ucf: Better documentation: Not a replacement for debconf handling)

Your message dated Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:59:41 +0000
with message-id <20190208105941.nogjkhdaibhepjbw@layer-acht.org>
and subject line re:  ucf: Better documentation: Not a replacement for debconf handling
has caused the Debian Bug report #408529,
regarding ucf: Better documentation: Not a replacement for debconf handling
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
408529: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=408529
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: ucf
Version: 2.0018.1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch

Hi Manoj,

it seems that some maintainers think that ucf is the solution to
everything.  In particular to save them from proper handling of
debconf-managed configuration files.

I've recently run across a bug report "$foo unconditionally overwrites
configuration upon update" and it turned out that the postinst just took
the value it found in the debconf cache and wrote it into the file,
nuking local changes.

Unfortunately, the solution they too was to put the file under ucf
control, nothing else - this "solved" their RCness problem, but would
give many unneeded ucf prompts, and even bogus if the change was because
of giving a different answer to debconf upon dpkg-reconfigure.

I pointed out the error to them.  I was then told that such questions
are what they "usually see" with ucf-managed conffiles, and that the
manpage of ucf gave them the impression they were acting correctly.

Therefore I suggest to apply the following patch:

--- ucf-2.0018.1.old/ucf.1	2007-01-18 23:17:48.000000000 +0100
+++ ucf-2.0018.1/ucf.1	2007-01-26 15:16:54.000000000 +0100
@@ -83,6 +83,13 @@
 .B dpkg 
 normally provides for
 .I \*(lqconffiles\*(rq
+It also can be combined with 
+.B debconf
+to gather configuration information from the user.  Note, however,
+that it is not a replacement to proper handling of debconf-managed
+configuration files, as detailed in
+.B debconf-devel(7), 
+it just can be added on top of it.
 .PP
 Additionally, this script provides facilities for transitioning a file
 that had not been provided 

Regards, Frank

-- 
Dr. Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
hi,

I'm closing this bug report, as ucf is not documented in def-ref
currently at all, while there is a FIXME entry in the text to do that.

I'd be glad to take a patch documenting ucf usage, but following the
reasoning in http://blog.liw.fi/posts/wishlist-bugs I'm closing this bug
now.

(Also, if you really disagree, just reopen and retitle the bug
accordingly.)


-- 
tschau,
	Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: