Bug#328291: debconf, tex-common and the management of ls-R and .cnf files
Hi Frank, hi all!
(hopefully after my stupid typing error we are back in the right bug)
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Template: tex-common/onlycachefonts
> > Type: boolean
> > Default: true
> > _Description: Apply debconf rules on ls-R files only to /var/cache/fonts/ls-R
> > Files under /var/cache/fonts are generated on the fly by all the users
> > in case a font is missing. Therefore it is good to allow the update of
> > /var/cache/fonts/ls-R by a specified group. If you select yes here, only
> > this ls-R file is managed by debconf, all the other get save permissions
> > and can only be modified by root. If you choose no, all the ls-R files'
> > permission are managed by debconf.
> > ----------------------------
>
> Wouldn't it be more appropriate to change the order/hierarchy of
> questions a bit? As I understand the wording, the user would only see
> this questions after answering "yes" to the general "manage with
> debconf" question. I think we should make both questions independent
> (and only explain what an "ls-R file" is in the first one). Don't know
> which should come first; maybe first about font cache and only ask the
> second if they answered yes to the first.
Hmm, I thought about the following lines:
Do you want to manage your ls-R files with debconf or not:
yes/no
if yes -> Do you want to manage only the /v/c/f/ls-R file or all ls-R files?
only/all
Rest of the questions refer either to only or all.
> Well, I generally agree, but it's nice to be able to grant ls-R access
> to people who also have access to TEXMFLOCAL.
What we could do is ask for "Which ls-R file do you want to manage with
debconf" and suggest/default to /v/c/f and TEXMFLOCAL. So we would have
one question with multiselect which replaces the "DO you want to manage
with debconf" question, and the others about perm/group.
Would this be more useful? Do you prefer this?
> > # move the answers from tetex-bin to tex-common, if there are no answers
> > # in the tex-common db
> > maybe_move_answer() {
[...]
>
> Since there are defaults, I think there will always be some return
> value. You should rather check for the "seen" flag:
>
> db_fget tetex-bin/$ans seen || true
Hmmm. As far as I udnerstood the manpage of debconf-devel there not
necessarily is! The default is *not* saved in the debconf db:
man debconf-devel:
Default
[...]
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the default field con-
tains the "value" of the question, or that it can be used to
change the value of the question. It does not, and cannot, it
just provides a default value for the first time the question is
displayed. To provide a default that changes on the fly, you'd
have to use the SET command to change the value of a question.
But this does not happen in the config/postinst scripts of tetex-bin. So
I guess there not ncessarily is an answer in the debconf db.
> Also, don't forget to set the "seen" flag to yes for the tex-common
> incarnation of the question it it was already seen in tetex.
Ok, I will change this (although I would prefer it to see the question
when it moves to tex-common).
So in short, todo list:
. we have to clear up which questions we want in which order (in fact
ATM I would prefer the multiselcet "which ls-R do you want .."
. fix the seen flag after moving to tex-common
. purge the tetex debconf entries after moving
Did I miss something? I hope to do this tomorrow, I will send a proposal
then.
Best wishes and good night
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining AT logic DOT at> Università di Siena
sip:preining@at43.tuwien.ac.at +43 (0) 59966-690018
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BURBAGE
The sound made by a liftful of people all trying to breathe politely
through their noses.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
Reply to: